Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BELPER URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

COVENTRY CATHEDRAL BILL

DOVER HARBOUR BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

HERTS AND ESSEX WATER BILL

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ILFORD CORPORATION BILL

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

MILFORD DOCKS BILL

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL

OXFORD CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

RHOANGLO GROUP BILL

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

TEES CONSERVANCY SUPERANNUATION SCHEME &C. BILL

To be read a Second time upon Monday next.

TEES VALLEY WATER BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

WEST BRIDGFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Insurance Fund (Credit)

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of National Insurance the amount standing to the credit of the National Insurance Fund at the latest most convenient date.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): The balances of the National Insurance Fund and the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund amounted to £479 million and £787 million respectively on 31st March, 1951, the latest date covered by published accounts.

Mr. Hale: In view of this very substantial and satisfactory position, does not the Minister think that he might set up a small committee to deal with one or two of the more glaring anomalies that arise in the administration of the scheme in advance of the quinquennial revaluation, which, I understand, will not produce new proposals for quite a long time?

Mr. Peake: No, Sir. I cannot see any connection between the propositions which the hon. Member has raised.

Mr. Fort: Can my right hon. Friend say when the Fund will begin to run into deficit?

Mr. Peake: In 1956.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the large number of widows all over the country who, week after week, are paying sums for which, in many cases, they obtain no benefit at all? Is he aware that most of them were misled into paying them in the first instance and are now reluctant to give them up? Cannot something be done? Why should we have to wait until the quinquennial revaluation before attention can be paid to a matter of this kind?

Mr. Peake: That point was fully discussed in a Standing Committee, I think in May last.

Unemployment Benefit Regulations

Mr. West: asked the Minister of National Insurance when he proposes to

announce his intentions regarding extended benefits under the National Insurance (Unemployment Benefit) (Transitional) Regulations, 1948, which will expire on 4th July next.

Mr. Peake: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the National Insurance (Extension of Unemployment Benefit) Regulations made under Section 62 of the National Insurance Act, 1946. This is a temporary provision which lapses on 4th July next and I have no power to continue the Regulations beyond that date. I have, however, submitted to the National Insurance Advisory Committee draft Regulations under Section 12 of the Act, to provide additional periods of insurance benefit depending on the number of contributions paid and the unemployment benefit previously drawn. Copies of the draft Regulations are available in the Library.

Public Assistance Relief (Abuses)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he is aware of the abuses obtaining in the administration of Public Assistance, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Orpington; and what action he is taking to prevent such practices.

Mr. Peake: I am in touch with the National Assistance Board, who are responsible for the administration of assistance. They point out that there will always be some people who will try to evade their responsibilities and others who will succeed in abusing any system of relief; but that such people form only a very small proportion of the total number receiving assistance. The Board are looking into the matter to see whether further steps can be taken to prevent abuse.

Sir W. Smithers: Are not these abuses, which were recently exposed in a leading article in "The Times," conclusive evidence that the Socialistic concept of a comprehensive Welfare State is squandering public money, killing initiative and ruining character, and that that is why our prisons were never so full as they are today?

Mr. Peake: No, Sir, I cannot agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. The National Assistance Board


have been fully aware, as have their predecessors, of this problem of the work-shy who form a very small proportion of the total whom the Board have to assist. The disclosures to which my hon. Friend refers have, in fact, themselves appeared in the annual reports of the Board, who are well aware of the position and are doing their very best to deal effectively with it.

Sir W. Smithers: What action are they taking?

Dr. King: I: s the Minister aware that the administration of the National Assistance Board throughout the country is being conducted not only efficiently but with great humanity?

Mr. Peake: I can certainly join in the tribute which the hon. Gentleman has paid to the work of the Assistance Board.

Industrial Injuries (Amending Legislation)

Mr. T. Brown: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will now inform the House when it can expect the legislation amending the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, which was promised in the Gracious Speech from the Throne made on 4th November, 1952.

Mr. Peake: The preparation of this Bill has now reached an advanced stage, and I hope to be able to introduce it before very long.

Mr. Brown: While expressing my appreciation of the fact that there is what we call in Lancashire "a chance," may I ask whether the Minister will speed up the matter as quickly as he can, because this Bill, I hope, will not be controversial and will give relief to a large number of ex-miners who have been waiting so long for help?

Mr. Peake: I look forward just as eagerly as the hon. Gentleman to the introduction of this Bill.

Appeal Tribunals (Blind Persons)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of National Insurance how far his regulations contain instructions against, or impediments to, the appointment of a blind person to the appeal tribunals for which he is responsible, solely on the grounds that such a person is blind.

Mr. Peake: Following a recommendation in the Report of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace (1946–48), it was decided not to appoint blind persons to these tribunals.

Mr. Beswick: While appreciating the origin of this matter and the fact that it is in no sense a party matter, may I ask whether there will not be widespread public indignation if the public know that this disability is extended to appeals tribunals? Es it not intolerable that we should attempt to make second-grade citizens of human beings who have the same intelligence and judgment as any hon. Member of this House?

Mr. Peake: I think that in a matter of this kind it is right that I should be guided by the recommendations of the Royal Commission and by the action taken upon it by the Lord Chancellor so far as the appointment of magistrates is concerned. One must bear in mind that it is the interests of the appellants and the people who appear before these tribunals which must have our primary consideration.

Captain Ryder: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter? Surely the test to be applied should be whether a man's sense of judgment has been impaired and not so much whether he is blind or not.

Mr. Peake: The really important thing is that the people who appear before these tribunals and appeal to them should have complete confidence in them.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are many sightless people who do public work, for example, on local authorities, and often do it as well as those who are fortunately gifted with sight? Would the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter again?

Mr. Peake: I entirely agree with what has been said by the hon. Gentleman, and on my local advisory committees I am pleased to have the services of a number of blind persons; but they are tribunals of a different character, not performing judicial functions.

Mr. Beswick: Ought not the Minister to make it clear that these tribunals have three people serving upon them and that it is only a matter of one blind person


out of the three? May I add that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment?

Sickness Claims, Inner London

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of National Insurance to what extent the number of claims for sickness benefit in the London area during December, 1952, exceeded the corresponding figure for 1951; and how much additional benefit was paid.

Mr. Peake: The number of new claims to sickness benefit received in the offices of the Inner London region of the Department during the period of four weeks ending 1st January, 1952, and 30th December, 1952, were 52,770 and 77,040 respectively. It is not possible to state the amount of benefit paid on these claims.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of this further evidence of the loss caused by fog in London in December, which killed 6,000 people, will the Minister, if only to protect the Insurance Fund, urge upon his colleagues the Ministers of Health, Housing, and Fuel and Power, the need for much more energetic action to deal with this menace of air pollution?

Mr. Peake: I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, who is sitting beside me, will take note of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: What will he do?

Family Allowances Act (Court Orders)

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will consider amending the Family Allowances Act in such a way as to ensure that a man who has a court order to meet in respect of a child for 7s. 6d. shall not be required to meet the claim out of unemployment insurance or sickness benefit which includes no allowance for a child.

Mr. Peake: I am not clear what case my hon. Friend has in mind. In any event, I do not think that the Family Allowances Act is the appropriate place to deal with a man's liabilities under a court order.

Miss Ward: Whether the Family Allowances Act is appropriate or not, is my right hon. Friend aware that it is that Act which is involved in a case of this kind? Unless an alteration can be made, a man drawing unemployment insurance or sickness benefit has the alternative of going into default on his court order or paying out of his benefit more money than he can possibly afford? Would my right hon. Friend kindly inquire into this matter further with a view, perhaps, to giving guidance to the courts of summary jurisdiction on the application of the Act?

Mr. Peake: If it is any satisfaction to my hon. Friend, I can tell her that she has succeeded in asking a Question the meaning of which has completely baffled myself, the National Assistance Board and the Home Secretary. I would, however, invite her to clarify her point in an interview with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.

INDUSTRIAL FUEL EFFICIENCY (PROPOSALS)

Mr. Alport: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he has taken to implement the recommendations of the Ridley Committee with regard to improvements in industrial fuel utilisation; and whether he is in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to increase industrial fuel efficiency services, create a greatly increased fuel efficiency advisory service, amplify financial arrangements for industrial fuel economising plants and encourage training in fuel technology, all in accordance with Recommendations Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 21 of the Ridley Report.

Colonel Clarke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give any information as to the arrangements being made to expand or supplement the Ministry of Fuel and Power Audit Service for factories and commercial buildings.

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement on the action he is taking on the recommendations of the Ridley Committee on Industrial Fuel Economy.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Yes, Sir. On Recommendations Nos. 17, 19 and 20, referring to fuel efficiency advisory services, I have set up a small committee of the main industrial interests concerned to work out a scheme for an organisation of the kind recommended.
On Recommendation No. 18, concerned with technological training, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education is prepared to assist, and details are under consideration.
On Recommendation No. 21, I am in consultation with other Ministers on the possibility of amplifying the loan scheme for approved fuel saving installations.
With regard to Recommendation No. 22—the extension of industrial shift working—and No. 23 the efficiency of stokers—my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour has agreed to discuss the first with his National Joint Advisory Council, and on the second has brought to the notice of both sides of certain industries the urgent need for promoting maximum efficiency in stoking, and they are giving the matter their careful attention.
On Recommendations Nos. 33 and 35, relating to charges and conditions for electricity supplies when private plant is also used, the electricity boards announced their general acceptance of the recommendations on 5th January.

Mr. Alport: When does my right hon. Friend expect that the result of the committee's work on the industrial fuel efficiency advisory service will be available?

Mr. Lloyd: I am hoping in a few weeks.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the fact that the Report of the Ridley Committee took 16 months to compile and we have had this Report now for five months, is it not rather unsatisfactory that yet one more committee is being brought into being to say how this industrial fuel advisory service is to be conducted? Can my right hon. Friend tell the House unequivocally that this committee will report within a month and that when the report is to hand we shall get some urgent and dynamic action without another two years' delay?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that in a matter in which we require to get the co-operation of a considerable number of diverse industrial interests, the most practical procedure is to get people to agree and not to issue rather dictatorial decrees.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In connection with these proposals for improved fuel efficiency, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the need to do something about the problem of air pollution in such areas as London and other large industrial towns, because the one thing links up with the other and there is a need for co-ordination?

Mr. Lloyd: The two things do link up and, as a previous holder of my office said, they go quite a part of the way together; but not all the way.

Colonel Clarke: Arising out of my right hon. Friend's reply specifically to Question No. 17, which related to the Ministry of Fuel and Power Audit Service for factories and commercial buildings, would he consider making use of the consulting engineers, the fuel distributors and appropriate trade associations in that connection?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. We have already made use of trade associations, as hon. Gentlemen opposite know. I think this would be particularly a matter for the industrial organisation when it is set up, but I imagine that they would want to adopt that course.

Mr. Robens: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that within his Ministry now, with the publication of the Ridley Report, he has all the information he wants to enable the Government to produce a proper fuel and power policy?

Mr. Lloyd: I think we need the cooperation of the interests who would have to take on the job of the organisation recommended by the committee.

Major Anstruther-Gray: How soon does my right hon. Friend think he will achieve a really effective saving of fuel by the action which he is now proposing to take?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will probably recollect that it has been shown previously that savings are being made all the time. In the debate last year I showed that very large


savings of coal were being achieved by the increased efficiency of electricity generation, for example.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the several unsatisfactory aspects of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the terms of reference of the committee set up by the National Productivity Council to deal with industrial fuel efficiency; what relationship this committee has to the recommendations of the Ridley Committee; what functions will be performed by Sir Hubert Houldsworth, Mr. Bertram White, Mr. Byron Smith, Mr. Jenkins and Sir Lincoln Evans; and why representatives of the oil, gas and electricity supply industries have been excluded.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I set up this committee for the purpose of working out a scheme to implement the Ridley Committee's recommendations for an increased industrial fuel efficiency service. The main interests concerned are represented and in the interests of speed I kept the committee as small as possible.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the composition of the committee is it not pertinent to ask whether Sir Hubert Houldsworth, Sir Lincoln Evans and other distinguished gentlemen of that calibre have not enough work to do already without being called to sit upon what appears to be an unnecessary further committee?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. It was because I attached considerable importance to the work of this committee that I asked these distinguished gentlemen to serve on it, and I am very grateful to them for doing so.

GAS WATER HEATERS

Mr. Alport: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the decline in the demand for gas water heaters; and what steps he intends to take to prevent the contraction of the use of this efficient method of domestic water heating.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Yes, Sir, but this depends on the consumers' choice.

Mr. Alport: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is another indication of the importance of having a co-ordinated national policy of fuel and power utilisation at an early date?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Solid Fuel Burning Appliances

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what arrangements he has now made to encourage production of solid fuel burning domestic appliances with new standards of performance based on achieving a room efficiency of 40 per cent. with coal; to mark such appliances; and to produce high-efficiency open fires of utility pattern capable of easy installation in existing fire openings and with convection heating and a restricted throat, in accordance with recommendations 2, 3 and 6 and paragraphs 138 and 143 of the Report of the Ridley Committee on National Policy for the use of Fuel and Power Resources.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am glad to say that the manufacturers are already at work on these new designs. The so-called "room efficiency" standards have not yet been evolved, but I am advised that it may be possible to relate these to the present "test bench" standards. These are being revised and raised and when this has been done, the question of marking appliances can be decided.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the supreme importance of clearly identifiable markings on these super-efficient appliances in view of the fact that so many of those at present on the market are of a relatively low efficiency and that much confusion is thereby being caused in the minds of householders?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes; but marks which indicate super-efficiency must be based on very certain standards, and the scientists are not yet sure that they can relate the room efficiency standards to the so-called test bench standards. Until they are sure about that we do not think it desirable to mark them.

Mr. T. Brown: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the new houses now being erected in various parts,


particularly in coalfields, the improved type of fire range will be installed for the benefit of the miners?

Mr. Lloyd: The Coal Board are installing the improved ranges not only in the new houses but in a large number of the older houses.

Household Stocks

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware of the concern aroused by the rapidly-diminishing stocks of household coal in many districts; and what action is contemplated by his Department to ensure that hardship is avoided in the event of protracted unfavourable weather conditions.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: House coal stocks always fall at this time of year and, of course, fall faster when the weather is colder. This applies particularly to large house coal. There are, however, ample supplies of smaller coals, coke and other fuels. These should be used to eke out supplies of large coal.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing feeling that he is being too complacent about the situation and that a warning should be given about the need to use coal sparingly, for the benefit of those who have still a little coal in their cellars? Will he warn them that they may have to wait four, five or six weeks for fuel?

Mr. Lloyd: There is a Question later on on the Order Paper, the reply to which shows that merchants have great difficulty in getting coal out quickly enough even though they have the coal, which usually happens at this time of the year. Householders can assist to allay the general fear about the coal situation by taking coke, small coal or nutty slack with their household coal.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that in the Eastern Counties, even before the recent floods there was some anxiety about the level of stocks? In addition to meeting the needs of the emergency, will he make sure that stocks of coal for the Eastern Counties are kept up to the rather high level required by the special climatic conditions which exist there?

Mr. Lloyd: The Eastern Counties have always had some grievance in this matter.

We shall certainly bear this point in mind. In addition, we are sending special extra supplies of coal to all the flooded areas for the general need, and especially to help people to dry out their houses.

Deliveries, Slough

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will take action to increase the supply of coal to the borough of Slough, where merchants are three to four weeks behind with their deliveries.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Coal merchants and their staffs are doing their best to deliver the coal as quickly as possible, but at this time of year many of them fall some weeks behind with their deliveries. I am making inquiries about the position in the borough of Slough and will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people, including old people who are confined to their houses, are now without coal or are having to use coal dust? Will he therefore take the most energetic action to try to put this matter right?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall certainly look into that matter. If in difficulties these people can apply for help from their local fuel overseer. I have a preliminary report from Slough, where some coal merchants have as many as half their van drivers ill with influenza which has, naturally, caused delay.

Commander Donaldson: Is the Minister aware that there is a serious shortage of coal in South-East Scotland and will he do what is in his power to improve the situation in that area?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. Unfortunately, the production of coal in Scotland has been particularly poor this year and we are having to send coal from England to make up the deficiency.

PREMIUM PETROL (ADVERTISING)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the excessive sums being expended by the petrol companies in advertising branded petrol, he will reduce the price to the consumer by regulation.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: No, Sir, I do not control the prices of these premium petrols.

Miss Burton: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the brushes and dusters which I have in my hands and which are being given away by the Shell and B.P. Company? They have a retail value of at least 5s. Is he further aware that the Regent Company are giving away jigsaw puzzles and propelling pencils? Would not he agree that it would be of more benefit to the consumer if these companies spent a little less money on these things—for which consumers have to pay in the end, anyway—and reduced the price of petrol by ½d. a gallon?

Mr. Lloyd: I appreciate the point which has been made by the hon. Lady; but there is another way of looking at it. It is rather satisfactory, after all these years of "take it or leave it," to find this wooing of the consumer.

Sir R. Acland: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what part of the cost of the petrol advertising campaign falls upon the taxpayer in his capacity as a major shareholder of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give that information now can he let me know later?

Mr. Lloyd: It will certainly need a lot of research.

Mr. Erroll: Is not competition the best way of bringing down prices?

ELECTRICITY TARIFFS

Colonel Clarke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if the electricity boards have now, in accordance with his request, reviewed the working of their new tariffs: and what report they have made to him on this matter.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: These reviews will take some time and I have not yet received a report.

Colonel Clarke: Will the Minister ensure that, in accordance with recommendations of the Ridley Report, when reviewing these tariffs the boards make certain that their charges are truly based on the costs of supply and are free from any form of restrictive covenant?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a matter which arises in other respects and, in regard to certain particulars, as I have said, the Electricity Boards accepted them on 5th January.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF MATERIALS

Imported Softwoods

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Materials the stocks of imported softwoods in October, 1951, January, 1952, and November, 1952.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): On account of the illness of my right hon. Friend I have been asked to reply to this and other Questions.
Stocks of imported softwood, excluding sleepers and crossings, poles and mining timber, amounted to 613,325 standards at 31st October, 1951, 729,199 standards at 31st January, 1952, and 638,437 standards at the end of November, 1952.

Mr. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that the figures which he has given me are completely different from the figures published in the Digest of Statistics? Which are right?

Mr. Strauss: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the latest copy of the Digest of Statistics is only just on sale. He may not have seen it.

Sir H. Williams: In view of the forest disaster in Scotland, will my hon. and learned Friend see that steps are taken at the earliest possible date to reinforce our supplies of softwood by taking care of the vast number of trees which have fallen?

Mr. Strauss: I think my hon. Friend will find that there is a later Question on that subject.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Materials if he will make a statement on the stocks of softwood timber held by the timber trade and the Government: and if the prospective supplies will soon allow some easing of the restrictions on the use of softwoods.

Mr. H. Strauss: Stocks of imported softwood held by the timber trade and the Government at the end of November, 1952 (the latest date for which figures are published), amounted to 638,437 standards.
My right hon. Friend regrets that this does not make it possible to ease the restrictions on the consumption of softwood. They are maintained in order that our imports of softwood, which practically all come from non-sterling countries, are kept to a figure which we can afford.

Mr. Hurd: Will my hon. and learned Friend ask the Minister of Materials to look afresh at the restrictions on the use of small quantities of softwood timber. which are involving many people in a great deal of irksome form filling to very little advantage to anyone?

Mr. Strauss: I will bring what my hon. Friend says to the notice of the Minister.

Sir L. Ropner: Will my hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that the Department will be prepared to ease restrictions on the consumption of softwood in view of the enormous quantities lying on the ground all over the country at present?

Mr. Strauss: I will certainly bring what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said to the notice of the Minister, but I cannot go beyond what I said in my original statement today.

Jute Control (Losses)

Sir J. Crowder: asked the Minister of Materials what steps he is taking to reduce the losses of the Jute Control.

Mr. H. Strauss: The recent losses are due to a trading deadlock between Pakistan and India in 1950–51 which led to dangerously low stocks of jute goods in this country. In consequence, the Jute Control had to buy at inflated prices, to which an export duty raised to 400 per cent. contributed. Apart from such exceptional circumstances there is no reason to expect that the Control, which in the past has made profits, will incur such losses.

Blown-Down Timber (Use)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Materials whether he will take into consideration the large quantities of home-grown timber blown down by last week's gales before agreeing to any further importations of timber from overseas.

Mr. H. Strauss: Any extra hardwood resulting from the recent gales will be

taken into consideration when future import programmes are drawn up. Softwood is imported on open individual import licence and contracts for the bulk of this year's deliveries have already been made. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Materials is now considering with the Secretary of State for Scotland the problem created by the gales.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Do we take it that a scheme of storage of this blown-down timber is being considered. in view of the fact that no less than 10 years' felling of softwood over certain parts of Scotland was blown down last week?

Mr. Strauss: We are well aware of the seriousness of what happened in the destruction last week, and my right hon. Friends the Minister of Materials and the Secretary of State for Scotland are considering this matter. As the House may be aware, a number of Questions have been put down to the Secretary of State for Scotland on this subject.

Mr. Spence: Has consideration been given to the question of whether the licensing for the felling of timber might be restricted during the time that this surplus of blown-down timber is available? Will my hon. and learned Friend consider what effect that might have on concentrating the available labour squads in Scotland?

Mr. Strauss: I will see that all these points are brought to the notice of the Ministers concerned.

Waste Paper (Collection)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Materials whether he can give comparative figures for the collection of waste paper this year and last: and to what extent there is still need for this material to be salvaged.

Mr. H. Strauss: No figures are yet available for the collection of waste paper this year. The total receipts of waste paper at the paper and board mills in 1952 were 838,767 tons compared with 1,078,138 tons in 1951, the reduction being largely due to reduced consumption by the mills.
The need for waste paper salvage remains important, as appears from the figures of its consumption by the mills. which, in 1952, was 822,160 tons.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Is there not room for economy in the imports of this material, in view of the fact that very large quantities are being salvaged?

Mr. Strauss: No waste paper is being imported.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister aware that many local authorities in Scotland who have salvaged a large quantity of waste paper are unable to sell it? The facilities which they have for disposal are such that they are now reaching the stage at which they can no longer store the salvage and are having to stop collecting it. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman do something about it in order to help the local authorities?

Mr. Strauss: I will bring what the hon. Gentleman says to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Sir T. Moore: Would the Minister consider appealing to the Howard Penal Reform League, who have sent me a large pamphlet against corporal punishment? He might get a lot of waste paper in that way.

Mr. Fernyhough: Why not send it to Franco?

Metals (Prices)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Materials the price paid by his Depart-

UNITED KINGDOM (LONDON) PRICES OF COPPER, LEAD AND ZINC


£ per ton to nearest £


—
1929
1939 (January to August)
1949
1950
1951
1952


Copper
…
…
75
43
133
153/202
202/234
227/287


Zinc
…
…
25
14
88
85/151
151/190
190/110


Lead
…
…
23
15
103
85/137
136/180
80/170


NOTE: Figures for 1929, 1939 and 1949 are yearly averages. The figures for 1950. 1951 and 1952 show the highest and lowest prices for these years.

Chemicals (Prices)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Materials the price paid by his Department for sulphate of potash, chemical wood pulp, sulphuric acid, 168° T.W., glycerine, sulphur, talc, iron ore, per ton, raw linseed oil, turpentine, creosote, in-

ment for tin, copper, pig iron, zinc (English sheets), lead (sheets), galvanised iron, nickel, per ton, chromium, per pound, and platinum and fine gold, per ounce, during the year 1952, showing comparisons with the prices for these articles in the years 1929, 1939, 1949, 1950 and 1951.

Mr. H. Strauss: Since the answer is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lewis: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the price paid for these materials by his Department was more in 1952 than in 1951, or whether it was less?

Mr. Strauss: I would rather not summarise figures from a long answer which the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to study.
Following is the answer:
Of the commodities named, the Ministry of Materials traded only in virgin copper, lead and zinc during 1952. Virgin lead and zinc have now reverted to private trade. The Department has never traded in lead and zinc sheets.
The following table shows the prices of these metals in the years named. Since it is impossible to quote average purchase prices at short notice, the table gives the Ministry's selling prices for the years of public trading. For 1929 and 1939, the prices are those at which consumers in the United Kingdom got their metals.

dustrial methylated spirit, and paint, per gallon, during the year 1952. showing comparisons with the prices paid for these articles in the years. 1929, 1939, 1949, 1950 and 1951.

Mr. H. Strauss: Since the Answer is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that, generally speaking, the prices paid last year for the majority of these materials were less than those paid in 1951? Why, therefore, should the cost of living have risen so much? Can we have an explanation?

Mr. Strauss: That has nothing to do with the Question which the hon. Member put on the Order Paper, which asks

UNITED KINGDOM PURCHASE PRICES OF SULPHATE OF POTASH, SULPHUR AND SULPHURIC ACID (168 T.W., (per ton c.i.f.)


—
1929
1939
1949
1950
1951
1952



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Sulphate of Potash.
10
6
6
8
18
6
No purchases
15
2
0
15
18
10
16
10
0


Sulphur—


Acid
No figures
8
18
10
8
8
0
10
2
0
15
5
0
13
2
0


Regular
No figures
No figures
8
15
0
11
0
0
15
6
0
13
10
0


Sulphuric Acid
No figures
No figures
5
16
0
6
4
0
9
11
0
11
0
0

BRITISH SECRET SERVICE (ALLEGATIONS)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what type of inquiry was held both at the time and subsequently into allegations of neglect on the part of the British Secret Service during the last war, in respect of the case outlined in "London Calling North Pole" whether Lieutenant Hubertus Lauwers, Mr. P. Dourlein, Mr. J. B. Ubbink and Colonel H. J. Giskes gave oral or written evidence at either of these inquiries; and the terms of reference of these inquiries.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I have nothing to add to the answers given to the hon. Member on 28th January.

Mr. Lewis: As I anticipated that that would be the reply, may I ask the Minister how there can have been a proper inquiry when the vital witnesses have not given any evidence, either orally or in writing? In view of the fact that the whole of the evidence was destroyed within two years of the end of the war, will the Minister not have a thorough inquiry made into the matter, like the Netherlands Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry in Holland?

for certain information. That information is given to him in the answer.

Following is the answer:
Of the commodities named, the Ministry of Materials traded only in sulphate of potash, sulphur, and (to a limited extent) sulphuric acid during 1952. Public trading in sulphate of potash ended on 30th June, 1952.
The following table shows the average prices paid by the Government or by private traders for the three commodities in the years named.

Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said to the hon. Gentleman previously, if the hon. Gentleman has any new evidence of substance to bring forward, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be pleased to receive it in writing.

Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree to ask these officers and men, who were directly connected with this incident, to give their evidence either verbally or in writing?

JORDANIAN VILLAGES (ISRAELI ATTACK)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the attacks on the Jordanian villages of Falama and Rantis by Israeli troops on 23rd and 28th to 29th January last, involving the slaughter of at least 10 Arabs, of whom seven were women and children; and what steps he proposes taking, through the United Nations or otherwise.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. I have received reports of these attacks, which I heartily deplore. I have not full details of the casualties, though I am sorry to


say that, according to information received, at least three Arabs were killed and 10 or 12 wounded, including women and children.
It is the responsibility of the Mixed Armistice Commission and the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation to investigate such incidents, and, if necessary, to communicate their findings to the United Nations Security Council. I am informed that the Mixed Armistice Commission has by majority vote, after investigating these attacks, held the Israeli Government responsible for these breaches of the Armistice Agreement.

Major Legge-Bourke: Has my right hon. and learned Friend any information which points to the fact that the ammunition used in this battalion attack on the second night was of British origin, especially in view of the fact that Piat bombs and Bren guns were used on that occasion?

Mr. Lloyd: I have no information on that.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider using these events as an opportunity to remind the Arab States that they have resisted the attempt on the part of the United Nations to bring peace to the Middle East? Does he not think, in view of these events, that it would be a useful thing if we could reverse the policy which the Government are at present pursuing, and deny the supply of arms to any of the countries in the Middle East?

Mr. Lloyd: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman heard my answer in regard to the responsibility for these particular incidents. The Government have made representations to the Israeli Government, but we have, however, also counselled moderation on the part of Jordan.

Mr. Janner: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman is considering this matter will he also consider the question of the constant infiltration of the Arabs from Jordan into Israel and of their depredations? Will he read the article of Glubb Pasha in "The Times" today, in which this is openly admitted, and in which he talks about some of these infiltrees—[HON. MEMBERS; "Oh."]—infiltrators, if hon. Members like—not being criminally inclined, and see that the

derailment of trains and other attacks by Jordan marauders will be stopped?

Mr. Lloyd: We have no evidence that this infiltration is connived at or encouraged by the Jordan Government. There is some explanatory reason for such infiltration that takes place in that people living on the Jordan side of the frontier are, in many cases, separated from their former lands and their relatives.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give consideration to the possibility of raising in the United Nations an alternative proposal to the Mixed Armistice Commission, which seems quite incapable of preventing these appalling incidents from happening?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Naval Review, Portsmouth (Supplies)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Food whether he will ensure that adequate rationed foods are available for Portsmouth and district to allow for the influx of visitors for the naval review.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): Yes, Sir.

Brigadier Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer.

Slaughterhouse, Sittingbourne

Mr. P. Wells: asked the Minister of Food when he proposes to close the Sittingbourne slaughterhouse.

Dr. Hill: No decision has been taken to close this slaughterhouse.

Mr. Wells: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that about 6,000 animals are killed in the slaughterhouse annually, and that the meat inspectors and the slaughterers work in appalling conditions? Is he further aware that the medical officer of health, in his annual report, says this:
These premises are obsolete, and the conditions under which meat is prepared for human food are unsatisfactory, and will continue so until a small modern slaughterhouse is provided"?

Dr. Hill: I appreciate the hon. Member's point. The new Canterbury slaughterhouse is coming into operation this week. There will now be a review


of existing facilities, and the point the hon. Gentleman makes, and those made by the local authority, will be taken into account.

Derationing and Food Offices (Economies)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Food what administrative and financial economies have been effected in his Department as a result of the derationing of tea and sweets and of the closing of local food offices.

Dr. Hill: Derationing of tea has saved 375 staff, costing about £135,000 per annum. Derationing of sweets is expected to save about 610 staff, costing £217,000 per annum.
In the past 12 months, 398 local food offices have been closed. As their services to the public have been continued by other Departments on an agency basis, I cannot yet give an estimate of the net saving.

Sir I, Fraser: Will there not be a considerable saving to millions of housewives in no longer having to fiddle with coupons? Can my hon. Friend also say whether there has been any saving in the trade due to the non-filling in of forms and all that?

Dr. Hill: My hon. Friend's Question related to the saving in the Department. There has, of course, been a substantial saving in the trade. In the case of sweets derationing, the saving has been 1,000 staff.

Mr. Hastings: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind the desirability of retaining a skeleton service in case rationing has to be reimposed?

Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend is confident that we shall not repeat the catastrophe of 1949.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

"Queen Elizabeth" (Fires)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the fires that occurred on the "Queen Elizabeth" at Southampton on 28th and 29th January.

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the fires which occurred on the "Queen Elizabeth" on 28th and 29th January.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Fire broke out shortly after 8 o'clock on the evening of Wednesday, 28th January, in one of the cabins on the main deck of the "Queen Elizabeth" as she lay in the "King George V" graving dock at Southampton undergoing her annual overhaul. The fire started in a wardrobe and was discovered through the ship's automatic fire alarm. The automatic sprinkler system came into operation and the fire was also fought by the ship's fire crew. Fire engines and a fire-float were in attendance. The fire was extinguished within half an hour of its being discovered, and damage was almost entirely confined to one cabin.
The second fire was discovered in a cabin on "C" deck just before noon on Thursday, 29th January, the following day, when some oily rags were found to be burning. A hand alarm was sounded and the fire was quickly extinguished. Damage was very slight.
As hon. Members will be aware, I ordered a preliminary inquiry under the Merchant Shipping Acts to be conducted into the circumstances of both fires, and the police are also conducting an investigation. Inquiries have not so far revealed how the fires began.

Dr. King: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him whether he is aware how much we appreciate the keen interest which he himself and the Departments concerned have taken in these fires, as the safety of the "Queen Elizabeth" is of vital importance not only to the people of Southampton but of the whole country?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I can assure him that we are deeply concerned about any danger to magnificent ships of this kind.

Mr. Morley: Has the Minister expressed the same sentiments to the various fire brigades which came quickly to the scene and did such valuable work?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very grateful to them, as I am sure we all are, and I shall make a point of doing that myself as well.

Conference, Paris (U.K. Representation)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport why he declined the invitation for Her Majesty's Government to be represented at the European Transport Conference which opened in Paris on 29th January.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I made to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) on 4th February.

Mr. Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how he reconciles his unfortunate decision not to be represented at the conference with the support which his hon. Friends gave to the recommendation before the Strasbourg Consultative Assembly regarding the setting up of a European council for the co-ordination of transport?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman had better look at my answer, which is very full.

Queen's Circus, Battersea (Police Instructions)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport for how long police instructions in connection with Queen's Circus, Battersea, which are validated by Statutory Instrument, No. 113, have been in operation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): No police instructions have been in operation here. The Statutory Instrument to which my hon. Friend refers is designed to remedy an oversight which has only recently come to our notice.

Sir H. Williams: Is the Minister aware that I drive by Queen's Circus every time I go to Croydon, and that there have been visual police instructions there for about two years? Would he consult the police again?

Mr. Braithwaite: My hon. Friend is misinformed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the number of Statutory Instruments, schemes and ordinances still in force, and the frustration that these and similar instruments are having on commerce and industry and the necessity for increased production under free enterprise, he will give an undertaking that the number of such instruments will be reduced as soon as possible; and the policy of the Government in this matter.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): As I said on 1st April last year, it remains our constant endeavour to limit as far as possible the number of Statutory Instruments

Sir W. Smithers: Does my right hon. Friend remember that God in his wisdom thought that Ten Commandments were enough for the human race? Is he aware that the biggest obstacle to recovery is constituted by some 24,000 rules and regulations which frustrate and delay business and commercial organisations in this country? Will he please hurry up their removal?

The Prime Minister: The best possible progress will be made in this desirable direction.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is possible to have a "frustration on commerce," and, if not, will he consider giving classes in the English language to some of his hon. Friends?

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the official statement of Mr. Stalin that he still believes that war cannot be regarded as inevitable and that he is favourable to a meeting of heads of States to discuss the international situation; and what steps he now proposes to take to bring about such a meeting.

The Prime Minister: I will, with permission, answer this Question and No. 45, which was not asked but is on the Paper.
[45. Mr. DODOS: To ask the Prime Minister if, following his visit to the United States of


America, he will now endeavour to arrange a meeting with Marshal Stalin in an effort to lessen the tension in international affairs.]

Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. The Prime Minister is asking permission to give an answer to Question No. 45 which you have put back till Wednesday, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: If the Prime Minister wishes to answer the Question there is nothing to prevent him doing so.

Mr. H. Morrison: If my hon. Friend has asked that his Question shall be postponed till Wednesday—which I understand to be the case—surely it cannot be answered today.

Mr. Speaker: There were two Questions put down which were to be answered together, one in the name of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) and one in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). The hon. Member for Dartford gave notice, I understand, that he wished his Question not to be answered, but I received no such notice from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, so his Question properly remains on the Paper.

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has a perfect right to put his Question, but similarly my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds), who put down Question No. 45, has a right to ask for his Question to be postponed.

The Prime Minister: It is the same answer.

Mr. Morrison: That does not matter. [Laughter.] It really does not matter. In these circumstances, if my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has postponed his Question, surely the Prime Minister has no right to answer it.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the Rule to be that if a Question appears on the Order Paper there is no power to prevent a Minister from answering it.

Mr. Manuel: I should like to have your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker. As I understand, if two or more Questions are to be answered together the Minister answering has to get the permission of the hon. Members who put down the Questions.

Mr. Speaker: He has to get the permission of the House. It is done by general consent.

Mr. Morrison: This is a matter of importance which involves the rights of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Am I to take it from what you have ruled, Sir, that, if an hon. Member has intimated to you that he does not wish to ask a Question today but prefers to ask it on some other day, some other Member has a right to insist upon the answer being given today, even though the hon. Member who put it down wishes to postpone it? That is what the Prime Minister is trying to do.

Mr. Speaker: I do not see anything very much in it. Question No. 47 is quite properly on the Order Paper, and the hon. Member is entitled to an answer. His right to an answer is in no way prejudiced by the action of the hon. Member for Dartford in withdrawing No. 45, and if the Prime Minister answers No. 47 I think he is entitled to answer No, 45 as well.

Mr. Dodds: Do I take it from what you have ruled that my Question, which it has been arranged with the Table shall be on Wednesday, will now be on the Order Paper for Wednesday?

Mr. Speaker: That, I presume, will be so if it is still in order, but it is quite likely that the hon. Gentleman will be referred to this answer.

The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) should be so active in this matter considering that his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has already started for India.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Could I ask you, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance of the House, whether you can detect in this or any other Question on the Order Paper any reference to the journey of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) to India?

Mr. Speaker: I must say that, for myself, I could not understand the observation.

Mr. Dodds: It was infantile.

The Prime Minister: We on this side of the House are all in favour of open competition.
With regard to Question No. 47, I am, of course, always ready to consider any proposals which would effectively reduce international tension, but the attitude of the Soviet Government in regard to those issues which are outstanding between us does not encourage me to think that a meeting of the kind suggested would in present circumstances lead to this result.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the Prime Minister forgotten that in at least half a dozen important speeches on the eve of the last Election he pressed for a meeting with Mr. Stalin? Is he aware that earlier in this year Mr. Stalin declared himself favourably towards a meeting? Why does the Prime Minister now run away? Why does he not unite with Mr. Stalin, and invite President Eisenhower?

The Prime Minister: I think we must try to understand the general position as it moves. We in this country would feel very severe domestic preoccupations, making it difficult to have conversations with heads of Governments, if, for instance, so many of our best doctors were being charged with poisoning so many of our best politicians.

Mr. Shinwell: As the attitude of the Soviet Government is apparently no better nor no worse than it was when the right hon. Gentleman made his original suggestion about meeting Mr. Stalin, why is he running away from the proposal to meet?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware that I was running away from anything.

Mr. Shinwell: You are, as fast as your legs will carry you.

The Prime Minister: I think there was a better moment two years' ago, and more than two years' ago, than is presented now for such conversations.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the fact this—and why does not the right hon. Gentleman at least own up to it—that he raised the matter merely because he was in opposition, but now he is in Government he has changed his mind?

The Prime Minister: The imputation of motives is always questionable, and in this case can be treated with disdain.

Brigadier Medlicott: Bearing in mind some of the things that were said about my right hon. Friend during the Election, is it not clear that the two Questions and his reply are a well-merited tribute to the Prime Minister's powers as a peacemaker?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister now telling us that the reason why he objects to this meeting is that he does not want to be treated by a Soviet doctor? Is he aware that if he did go to Moscow and were treated by a Soviet doctor we would bear whatever followed with our customary fortitude?

The Prime Minister: If all the other difficulties were swept away I could easily take my own medical adviser with me.

ITALIAN TANKER (PERSIAN OIL CARGO)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

MR. A. HENDERSON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to the Italian Government, in view of the loading at Abadan of the Italian tanker "Miriella" with nearly 5,000 tons of refined oil.

Sir H. Williams: May I raise with you an interesting point of order, Mr. Speaker? There is on the Order Paper Question No. 31, in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), about an Italian ship now on its way from Abadan to Italy. I asked your permission to ask a Private Notice Question and you quite properly refused that permission on the ground that there was already an anticipated Question in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman cancelled his Question shortly before the House met today, would it be possible for the Minister of State to answer the Question, because there is great public interest in this attempt to evade the "blockade," if that is the right description, from Abadan to Italy?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry about that. I received the hon. Member's request to put a Private Notice Question. I saw this Question on the Order Paper. I had no idea


that this Question was to be cancelled or postponed, and I now understand that it has been postponed because, I am sorry to say, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is indisposed. I must maintain the rule that unless I receive notice from a Minister that he desires, in the public interest, to answer a Question which is not reached. I have no power in the matter.

EAST COAST FLOOD DISASTER

Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform the House that I have received telegrams of sympathy in connection with the recent disastrous floods and the serious loss of life and damage to property from:

The President of the National Assembly, France.
The President of the Chamber of Deputies, Luxembourg.
The President of the Chamber of Deputies, Italy.
The President of the Norwegian Storting, Oslo.
The President of the National Assembly, Portugal.
The Chairman of the Chamber of Representatives, Belgium.
The Speaker of the Knesset, Israel.
The President of the Greek Parliament. Athens.

I am sure that the House would wish me to express the thanks of all hon. Members to the senders of these telegrams. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This I have done.
I also desire to inform the House that I have sent a telegram to the Voorzitter of the Second Chamber of the Netherlands States-General, expressing the deep sympathy of all Members of this House with the Dutch people in their sorrow caused by the recent disastrous floods in the Netherlands.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, make a brief statement about the flooded areas on the East Coast.
As the House may be aware, I took the opportunity this morning of flying over some of these areas and had the

advantage of discussing the situation with responsible officials on the spot. I am glad to be able to inform the House that my general impression is that the most strenuous efforts have been made to repair our defences and that the work is proceeding as well as could be expected in view of the difficulties which had to be surmounted. In addition to voluntary helpers and the labour employed by contractors, there are now over 14.000 members of the Armed Forces employed on this work.
One of the pressing needs at the moment is for an extra supply of sandbags. The stocks which were held by the Services have been freely placed at the disposal of the civil authorities, with due regard to essential Service commitments, and these supplies are being supplemented by the stocks of sandbags held for civilian purposes. Over 20.000,000 sandbags from Service and Civil Defence reserves have already been used. Although it is hoped that existing stocks will see us through, we are seeing if we can create a reserve supply from other sources.
I hope to be in a position later this week to inform the House of emergency arrangements for giving local warnings should the floods at the next spring tides endanger human life and property. Final details of the scheme are being worked out at a conference held this afternoon at the Home Office with chief constables and representatives of all the authorities concerned. I also hope to be able to give information later this week about arrangements for collecting and distributing furniture, offers of which are coming in generously from the public.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) raised a point on Friday about the desirability of making some closer estimate of the numbers of those missing. I undertook to look into this point as a matter of urgency and, as the House is aware, an appeal was made on the wireless and through the Press to those who had left their homes and had not reported to the authorities to give information as to their whereabouts to the nearest police station. It may never be possible to give any exact figure of the numbers of those missing, since there is no accurate information available as to the numbers of those who were actually in the areas concerned at the times of flooding; but


the latest information available to the police suggests that the total of missing is about 50, most of them being from Canvey Island.
Since my last statement to the House 19 more deaths have been confirmed, so that the total number of deaths now known to the police is 283.
The Committee of Ministers of which I am Chairman has met every day except Sunday and will continue to meet during the continuance of this emergency. I shall make a report to the House from time to time as and when information becomes available which ought to be given to the House, but I think that the House will agree that it will not be necessary in future for me to give daily reports.

Mr. Follick: I sent you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I wished to raise a question based on a complaint which I have received from one of my constituents. He states that he was shocked while listening to "In Town Tonight," on the wireless, to hear that an Italian singer, who was bringing blankets and comforts for British flood victims, had been made to pay Customs duty on them because they were new. Does the Home Secretary think that it is right that people from abroad, sympathising with the distress of our flood victims and wishing to make a contribution towards easing their unhappiness, should be charged import duty on the gifts which they are bringing? Does he not think that unless this practice is stopped foreign sympathisers will not send these gifts, and that we shall lose their sympathy when they know that the Treasury are cashing in on the distress of flood victims?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry, but this is the first information I have had on that point, and, therefore, I must ask the hon. Gentleman and the House to allow me to look into it.

Commander Scott-Miller: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement regarding the warning arrangements, which will calm a lot of my constituents in King's Lynn, may I ask him if the Committee of Ministers will consider some form of recognition for the splendid work which has been done by the United States Air Force and Army Authorities in my division? We

have suffered a tragic number of lost lives, and the number would have been considerably greater if we had not had members of the United States Air Force risking their lives in carrying out rescue work.
Would the Government consider some form of citation or letter of appreciation either to the Colonel of Sculthorpe Aerodrome or to some other authority? The United States Forces have not only saved lives, but they have organised a kitchen to distribute food in King's Lynn for nearly a week, and the people there are very grateful to them.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have already expressed our gratitude and indebtedness to the United States Forces, and the whole House joined with me in so doing. We are now even more grateful for what is being done. I will consider the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Edward Evans: Will the Home Secretary be good enough to indicate to local authorities how far the Government propose to implement the promise by the Prime Minister last week that the disaster would be made a national charge, how local authorities are to submit their claims and how it is proposed to compensate individuals for the terrible losses which they have sustained?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I indicated last week that the cost of repairs to sea and river defences which can properly be regarded as emergency work will be met by the Exchequer. The scope of other Government assistance must depend on the extent of personal loss at it becomes known, and upon the field to be covered by the Lord Mayor's National Flood and Tempest Distress Fund. Meanwhile, those whose needs are not covered by unemployment benefit or other resources may apply in the usual way to the National Assistance Board to deal with emergencies. I shall certainly consider the point raised by the hon. Gentleman as to the methods by which local authorities should submit claims; but I thought it might be convenient to confirm the point I have just mentioned, as it is a very important one.

Commander Maitland: Will my right hon. and learned Friend inform the House and the people of this country as soon


as possible how individual claims for compensation and rehabilitation are to be made?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That was the point raised by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans). I shall do my utmost to see that that is done with the greatest possible speed.

Mr. P. Wells: Is the Home Secretary aware that, in addition to the members of the three Services who are doing a grand job on the Isle of Sheppey, every able-bodied prisoner in the open prison on the Isle of Sheppey volunteered to undertake rescue and 'repair work? Will he consider compensating them in some way for the efforts which they are making?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am very glad that the hon. Member has raised that point. Perhaps he will give me a little time to consider how it should be met.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that at the time of the spring tides all the river boards responsible for the rivers draining into the Wash have a very anxious time every year, and in view of the enormous amount of reserves which have been used for this most necessary and urgent work, will he ensure that they are built up again for that contingency?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will certainly bear that point in mind.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

2ND ALLOTTED DAY

As amended, further considered.

Clause 4.—(TRANSFER OF TRANSPORT UNITS TO COMPANIES UNDER CONTROL OF COMMISSION.)

3.43 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, in page 7, line 18. after "exceed," to insert:
the aggregate of the following two amounts—
(a).

Mr. Speaker: If it meets with general agreement, we might have a discussion on this Amendment and the next four Amendments.

Mr. Callaghan: That course would be satisfactory to my hon. Friends and myself and also, I take it, to the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) in whose name two of the other Amendments stand. We shall thus have an omnibus discussion about lorries.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Does that mean, Mr. Speaker, that we discuss all the Amendments down to the one in my name, in page 7, line 39?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, down to but not including the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Callaghan: The Amendment which I have moved stands with the other Amendment in my name in page 7, line 23, at the end, to insert:
and in addition of the motor vehicles (so far as not included among such vehicles owned as aforesaid by such bodies corporate) in the following sub-paragraph referred to as such further motor vehicles' as at the passing of this Act are used by the Commission for the purposes of so much of their undertaking as is at that date carried on through the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division of the Road Haulage Executive, and
(b) of the total unladen weight of such further motor vehicles.
We have put down a rather complicated formula here, but I hope it has meant something to the Minister. If it has not, I shall do my best to make clear now what the intention is.
Throughout the course of the Bill we have been discussing a proposition from the Opposition that the British Transport Commission should be able to keep a substantial number of vehicles in order to enable it to enter into competition with private hauliers. We must acknowledge that the Minister has moved considerably during the course of the Bill. Originally he indicated that it was the Government's policy not to permit the Commission to retain any vehicles at all to run on long-distance road haulage. He moved from that position after a very powerful speech by the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), and he indicated that the Commission would be allowed to keep as many vehicles as the old railway companies had been using at the date of nationalisation.
It was then represented to the Minister that that was hardly fair because there had been a natural expansion in all road haulage fleets, whether nationalised or not, since 1st January, 1948. The Minister met that position by agreeing that they should keep six-fifths of the vehicles owned by the former railway companies on 1st January, 1948.
To the extent that the Minister has moved, the Bill is better from our point of view than when we first started, but from our point of view, from the point of view of the British Transport Commission and from the point of view of obtaining the best organisation of the road haulage industry, the Minister has still not moved far enough. The purpose of the Amendment is to persuade him that there is a case for his giving even more vehicles into public hands, not as a monopoly, against which he is vehement, but to enable them to run in competition with private haulage vehicles.
In the Committee stage the Minister gave us a large number of figures, which I have done my best to analyse, about the make-up of the Special Traffics Division of the Road Haulage Executive, which is colloquially known as Pickfords. He showed us that that Special Traffics Division is a most profitable one, making nearly £1 million a year profit. It is operated as a unit by the Road Haulage Executive and it has grown substantially since 1st January, 1948. On the Minister's own figures, Pickfords have grown far more than the 20 per cent. bonus which he

is giving the Commission under the Clause.
At present, on figures given by the Minister, the heavy haulage vehicles in Pickfords number 426. I understand that, on the Minister's formula, they may keep only 197 vehicles. If I am wrong, I hope the Minister will correct me, because I do not want to found my argument on an incorrect hypothesis. Of the other service vehicles, of which Pickfords have at the moment 2,600 plus, they will be able to keep only 1,500. They will be able to retain 840 ordinary load carriers, the present figure of which the Minister did not give us, and my guess is that that figure is lower than the ordinary number of load carriers which Pickfords are operating at present. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether I am right. He said he would find out about that.
Finally, the general parcels service vehicles owned by Pickfords number over 3,400, but in this Special Traffics Division under the Minister's formula they will be able to keep only 2,100. As I add the figures up, Pickfords at present have 6,500 or 7,000 vehicles—I cannot be certain of the exact figure because of the unknown number of ordinary load carriers—and under the Minister's formula they will be able to have only 4.678 vehicles.
The second question I ask is what is the purpose of breaking up this Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division? The right hon. Gentleman must give us a reason for doing this. It has nothing to do with monopoly. He knows, as we all know, that Pickfords have no monopoly except in heavy haulage, and that grew up under private enterprise and has nothing to do with nationalisation. For instance, they have no monopoly in furniture removing or, indeed, in any other field. We have here a unit which is making a substantial profit, and doing it as a successful organisation in competition with private enterprise.
Apart from sheer doctrinaire policy, why should the Minister seek to break up this unit in the way he is proposing? He has not given us a reason why he should tear this one unit apart. This unit is making nearly £1 million profit which is going into the public coffers, and it is running in competition, and will do so increasingly in the future, with private


enterprise road haulage. It is a nice, compact unit, as we all know, and I have not yet heard anybody make any substantial complaints against its efficiency.
I hope the Minister will change his mind about this altered formula so as to enable this Pickfords Division to be kept intact, in the light of the modifications in the Bill which he intends to make later on whereby companies will be formed and shares marketed. That seems to me to alter considerably the complexion of the whole problem, because his original intention, what I might call the romantic folly of the road haulage industry comprising the small man with his lorry, has disappeared before the chill winds of reality. We shall have more approach to the reality of the existing road haulage organisation than hitherto we have had from the Minister.
I welcome it and I am glad to see the Minister moving in that direction. This interesting experiment that he is making in the way of the formation of companies seems to me to make it more than ever desirable that an efficient, coherent unit like Pickfords should be preserved in its entirety. To give the Committee the figures again, under the Minister's proposals the Commission cannot keep in their Pickfords Division more than 4,600 vehicles out of a total of 6,500 as a minimum of their present-day fleet, though perhaps it could be a little more.
I ask the Minister a third question. He said in the Committee stage that he would consider again some of the arguments I advanced that even his formula as drawn is unnecessarily restrictive upon Pickfords, because it requires them to keep not just 20 per cent. more over the whole of their vehicles, but to keep 20 per cent. more in each class of the additional heavy haulage carriers, the additional ordinary load carriers, the additional parcels vehicles and so on. In other words, he has put the Commission in a strait-jacket. The Minister said, on 9th December that he was impressed by my argument. Whether in actual fact he was, I do not know. I have not noticed any Amendment to meet this particular point, and I ask the Minister to give us the results of his further consideration.
That briefly is our case for this Amendment. I do not pretend that the wording would necessarily have to be the same if the Minister accepted the principle

but I believe the principle I have enunciated is a strong one and I doubt whether it can be controverted. I hope that the Minister, whose mind is enlarging throughout the whole of the proceedings on this Bill, will see the value of the arguments put forward and will tell us now that he accepts the Amendment in principle.

Mr. A. Hargreaves: I beg to second the Amendment.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I think the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has correctly recited the recent Parliamentary history of this Clause, but he was a little bit confused when he started disclosing the analysis of figures which he has been making. I could not quite reconcile the total figure for the Pickford group of 4,678 which he gave with the figure which my right hon. Friend gave in Committee of 2,132 parcels' vehicles comprised in that total. I did not think that the Pickford group contained any parcels vehicles. I think my right hon. Friend's speech was referring to another part of the fleet of the Road Haulage Executive. But that is by the way.
Because the Amendments standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends are included in the present discussion, I think I ought to explain their purpose. They are in page 7, line 18, to leave out "six-fifths," and to insert five-fourths," and in page 7, to leave out lines 25 to 29, and to insert:
(ii) without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this proviso, the total weight unladen of the vehicles so made over which belong to each of the three following categories, that is to say:—

(a) vehicles (whether motor vehicles or trailers) specially constructed to carry abnormal indivisible loads:
(b) motor vehicles (of whatever character) which in the opinion of the Minister ought to be regarded as special vehicles constructed for special purposes;
(c) other motor vehicles.

does not exceed thirteen-tenths of the total weight unladen of the vehicles so owned belonging to those categories respectively.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East missed the purpose of the second Amendment when he said that he did not see anything on the Order Paper which can give effect to any of the indications given by my right hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in


Committee. As a matter of fact, both the Amendments do that. The first one gives effect to the pleas made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) on the question of computing the loss to the Commission through doing away with the horse-drawn vehicles.
We have made a rough calculation here. What hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted in Committee appeared to us to add a fantastic figure to the Commission's fleet. We have added a rough number of 200 vehicles by amending the over-all figure which was in the Bill of six-fifths to that of five-fourths. This is meant partially to meet the case put forward that the Commission were entitled to have some figure representing the large fleet which used to be drawn by horses, part of which has now been eliminated and part converted into motor vehicles.

4.0 p.m.

The second Amendment takes care of the feeling of the entire Committee on 9th December, to which my right hon. Friend replied, that this application of a rigid six-fifths ratio for all the types of vehicle in the Commission's fleet would undoubtedly hamper their activities.

Although the words may seem to be complicated, if hon. Members will work out the little sum in the last line in regard to the thirteen-tenths they will see that the figures give latitude, as between the classes in (a), (b) and (c), for the Commission to raise the proportion upwards or downwards by 25 per cent. There will be a situation in which the Commission are allowed, over all, to retain 200 more vehicles.

In the category,
vehicles … specially constructed to carry abnormal indivisible loads,
are vehicles which transport giant transformers, ships' propellers, large girders and so on. In the second category,
motor vehicles … which … ought to be regarded as special vehicles constructed for special purposes
are such vehicles as tank wagons, insulated vans, timber wagons, and so on. In the third category,
other motor vehicles,
those which carry general loads there should be some latitude to raise the limit

up to 25 per cent, and consequently downwards in other categories by 25 per cent. so as to equate the position to the figure of five-fourths.

I do not know what the Government will say about them, but these proposals seem to go some distance towards meeting what was considered in the Committee to be appropriate. I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) were here, he would endorse them.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) for endeavouring to facilitate an improvement in the position as it was outlined by us in Committee. We will wait to hear what the Minister has to say. He promised to make a statement in regard to the Amendment which I have put down on this matter.
I rise merely to ask what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do in connection with the proposals put before him for Scotland, and I should like to have a specific answer. If the formula of six-fifths is to include the Pickfords (Special Traffics Division) and the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend is not accepted, there seems to be nothing in the Bill to prevent Scotland from being denuded by the Transport Commission of practically all her existing vehicles. If all those vehicles are to go to the making of a Special Division in selected groups south of the Border, will the Minister tell us what guarantee he can give that the Transport Commission will be able to retain and to operate in Scotland any road service vehicles at all? There is nothing in the Bill to prevent all of them going from Scotland to make up units south of the Border.
Is the Minister able to assure us that if these special services are to be equipped Scotland will not be left, even at the best, with much less than six-fifths of the 1948 position? There is no suggestion in the Bill that Scotland will retain six-fifths to be administered there. I gather from what the Minister said on the previous occasion that there is a plan to co-ordinate Scottish transport, and I have noticed from the Press that discussions are taking place. It may be that during the debate the Minister will be able to


give us the benefit of these discussions and say whether he has reached any conclusion about the co-ordinating plan for Scottish transport.
As I understood it, the plan was that there should be an authority in Scotland which would supervise and co-ordinate all the national transport in Scotland, including vehicles left under the control and in the ownership of the Transport Commission. If there are to be left no vehicles, or very few, based in Scotland, what vehicles are to be under the control of this authority which is to co-ordinate transport? It can hardly co-ordinate transport which does not exist. What assurances are we to have that of the Transport Commission vehicles there will be six-fifths, or some proportion, left in Scotland to maintain a nucleus of Transport Commission services?
This point is important, because I understand that another development is taking place which may create a very serious position in Scotland. I gather from the Minister's replies on the matter of goodwill that, when tenders are received, the value of the vehicles will not be only their material value, and that the price will cover goodwill. I am informed that syndicates are already formed in Scotland to see that the Minister does not get competitive tenders. The market will be rigged by the groups, who will arrange which vehicles they will tender for in order that the prices will not be high enough to include goodwill, or perhaps even to include the material value of the vehicles.
If that is happening within the groups in Scotland, it is conceivable that other tenderers coming from outside will do the same. Hypothetically, it is possible that many of the 3,600 road vehicles in Scotland will disappear from the services in Scotland. What arrangement is the Minister making to guarantee that road services will be carried on in Scotland in one way or another? From the Bill it appears that great injury will be done to the services which at present exist. There is no guarantee that they will be carried on in future, either by the Transport Commission or by private enterprise.
This is not a matter to be left to chance, and I should be glad if the Minister would make his proposals clear in regard to Scotland. We have made many attempts

to persuade him to take us his confidence in the matter. If we can get the proposals satisfactorily outlined to us, we shall know where we are going. The time for discussing these matters is so short that I propose to leave these questions with the Minister, in the hope that he will be courteous enough to give us very definite replies.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I am not going to enter into argument with hon. Gentlemen opposite about the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division, but I would observe, in passing, that the growth of Pickfords since nationalisation has not been wholly due to the ordinary development of trade, because a number of services that were part of other businesses that were nationalised were added to the Pickfords special division. If we are attempting to get back to an equivalent position, that which would have occurred if nationalisation had not taken place, it is appropriate that some part of Pickfords should be disposed of.
It has been clear from the outset that, while hon. Members on this side of the House wish to break the monopoly of road transport in so far as it existed with British Road Services, they have always intended to preserve for the Commission a proper share of road haulage. It is not proper to attribute every variation that may have since arisen in the Bill entirely to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). Long before he made that speech it was clear that those of us on this side of the House who supported the Bill always intended that the British Transport Commission should have a fair crack of the whip. The question is, what is a fair share for the Commission to retain to maintain a reasonable position?
The figures given by my right hon. Friend in the debate on 9th December clearly were based on the motor vehicles in the possession of the companies controlled by the railway companies before nationalisation. In that debate reference was made to horse traffic, and so it would seem appropriate that some variation of the figure of six-fifths, which was then mentioned, should be considered. One of the main features of our road transport service in the towns before the war were the magnificent van horses maintained chiefly by the railway companies and firms such as Carter Paterson. They were


worthy successors of their direct ancestors, the war horses of Agincourt. With the passing of time, however, and more particularly with the introduction of traffic lights, they became less and less appropriate on the streets and their numbers, which in 1948 were over 900, have been reduced to under 300 today.
Of course, a horse-drawn vehicle does not have the radius or carrying capacity of a lorry, so that in calculating the number of vehicles in the possession of the companies controlled by the railways before nationalisation, it is not correct merely to count the number of horse-drawn vehicles that have been replaced. For that reason the noble Lord and other hon. Members on this side of the House have suggested the figure of five-fourths, which is an increase on the figure of six-fifths in the Bill, and which we hope may be nearer the equivalent figure.
With regard to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), we have a transport monopoly in other places besides Scotland. We have a transport monopoly in Cornwall where we are almost entirely dependent on the British Transport Commission for long-distance haulage.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: What is the service like?

Mr. Wilson: The second Amendment in the name of my noble Friend, to leave out lines 25 to 29 in page 7, attempts specifically to deal with the question of seeing that the whole of whatever proportion of transport is left to the Commission shall not be swept into one aspect of transport, leaving the rest denuded. In that Amendment we seek to insert a form of words in order to keep the proportion of the various services more or less as it was previously. If those words are not appropriate, perhaps the Minister will be able to accept the principle? I feel sure that the suggestion that one part of the country will be left without any service is an exaggeration.

Mr. David Renton: I want to carry a stage further the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson). The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) stated that the Minister's mind now seems to be moving in the

right direction. We know that the hon. Member believes in monopoly, but I am sure he will not wish to claim a monopoly of wisdom in this matter. The Minister's thinking starts, as does the thinking of all of us on this side of the House, from our election statement that not only would we de-nationalise the nationalised road haulage, but that we would form public road and rail transport into regional groups of workable size. That conception was further expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) and by other hon. Members from the Second Reading of the Bill onwards, when they stated that they wished they had heard more talk of public transport, where there is to be public transport, instead merely of road transport and rail transport.
4.15 p.m.
It was with the idea in mind of regional groups of workable size for public transport that presumably Clause 4 was introduced into the Bill. Since one of the objects of the Committee and Report stages of any Bill is to try to improve each of its Clauses, both sides of the House are now trying to improve Clause 4. The hon. Gentleman must not claim a monopoly in the matter, more especially if he would be so good as to consider the Amendments on the Paper in the name of my noble Friend, myself and others.

Mr. Callaghan: So far from claiming a monopoly in the matter, I specifically gave all the credit to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). There was nothing in the Minister's mind about giving any vehicles to the British Transport Commission. Indeed it was excluded specifically in another place by Lord Leathers who, when asked a direct question, said there was no intention of giving the Commission any vehicles. That so aroused the indignation of the hon. Baronet that he made a most powerful speech on the Second Reading of the Bill which altered the course of the policy of the Government on this issue.

Mr. Renton: All I can say is that Clause 4 has been in the Bill since it was introduced. However, I do not wish to labour the matter. From the point of view of creating regional groups of


workable size, the position is even more favourable to the Commission than may have appeared so far because, as I understand the matter, the Commission are in the fortunate position of having trailers thrown in as a "buckshee "addition to the unladen weight of tonnage provided by the Bill. There is a large pool of trailer tonnage and, as I understand the position, that will not count with any of the restrictive conditions of Clause 4. It is an important point to be borne in mind, and I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend will clarify it.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to define the term "buckshee"?

Mr. Renton: I am sure the hon. Gentleman has travelled about the world sufficiently to know the meaning of that expression. It is one used in many languages to describe something which is thrown in without one having to pay specifically for it. I hope the analogy is not too appropriate in this context.
In regard to the Amendments standing in the name of my noble Friend, the increase from six-fifths to five-fourths is no more than is necessary to ensure that those horses which came under the control and ownership of the Road Haulage Executive, and have now been replaced by mechanical vehicles, will not be overlooked in re-allocating the former railway-owned vehicles to the British Transport Commission. This figure must naturally be an approximation and perhaps I should add also that the word "horses" is correct and that "horse-drawn vehicles" would not be correct. That which I have described is the only effect and purpose of the Amendment in page 7, line 18 to leave out "six-fifths," and to insert "five-fourths."

Mr. J. A. Sparks: May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question?

Mr. Renton: I am sorry, but I am not going to give way again. I have given way three times already and we must get on with the business.
In the next Amendment in the name of my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), in page 7, to leave out lines 25 and 29, and to insert a new paragraph (ii), we have specifically dealt with the complaint

which was made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he suggested that the Clause as originally drawn had placed the Commission in a strait-jacket. Candidly, I do not think that it did, because what was originally in the Bill was that the fleet to be transferred should be "comparable"—that obviously means broadly comparable and not with tremendous mathematical precision—
… as respects the size, nature and quality of the vehicles comprised therein, to a fleet made up of the vehicles so owned.
But to give greater tolerance still and to place the matter beyond doubt, we propose this further Amendment, which is cast in very wide terms indeed. Nobody could suggest that if the Amendment were adopted the Commission would be in any way fettered, so long as they acted broadly in the spirit of reproducing the old railway-owned fleets of vehicles, allowing for increases and allowing for horse-drawn vehicles, and arriving at a reasonable approximation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) asked me about the position of Scotland in the event of Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division falling within the six-fifths over-all maximum. I hope on the Third Reading of this Bill, some time quite soon, to make a few general observations in some detail on the position of Scotland under the Bill. At this stage, I must say that I could not possibly bind the Commission as to the territorial distribution of those assets which they intend to retain.
Many private operators served Scotland before nationalisation and many will do so again. In deciding what proportion of the Commission's assets should be in Scotland, no doubt the Commission will have their own point of view and will have regard to their own interests in Scotland and, in consultation with the Disposal Board, will decide what they will do. Were I to tie them to a particular proportion in Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) reminded me—although Scotland is truly a nation and Cornwall is a county—the Commission would be in great difficulty. They would be in great difficulty if the Government tried to bind their distribution on a geographical basis.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that where the Commission operated uneconomic routes in Scotland there will not be any withdrawal from those routes in the Highland counties and that those areas will not be left without adequate transport?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a United Kingdom and the Bill applies to the country as a whole. What applies to Scotland would apply to any other part of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) apologised for the complicated nature of the Amendment which he moved and the Amendment to which he referred. I should like to congratulate him on the facility with which he explained the Amendments and, if I may say so without offence, on the skill with which he disguised their full implications.
I accept as broadly accurate all the figures which the hon. Member gave but, if looked at in detail, the consequence of the Amendment which is before the House would be that the British Transport Commission would retain, as under the Bill as it is now drawn, six-fifths of all the old railway and canal companies' business. Under the first Amendment they would also receive six-fifths of the tonnage of other vehicles not already covered by the Bill but in use with the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division of the Road Haulage Executive. Under the second Amendment they would receive a further tonnage equal to that of the vehicles of the Special Traffics Division not already covered by the Bill.
The net effect of both Amendments is to add to the six-fifths, eleven-fifths of the tonnage of other vehicles now in the Special Traffics Division which did not come over to the Commission with the railway and canal companies. I have looked at this matter in detail and have had the benefit of expert advice, and that is my conclusion. Perhaps the hon. Member did not intend to go so far, but if he did he must have realised that these Amendments strike at the very root of the first three Clauses of the Bill.
Nevertheless, I recognise that the House as a whole feel the need not only of a modest increase in the over-all total which the Commission might receive but the need for greater flexibility within that

over-all total. In the last few weeks I have been at pains to try to find means to give expression to the common view of the House. At the same time, it is the view of the Government and their supporters that in any greater flexibility that we can give to the Commission there cannot be continuance of a preponderating interest in any of the special road services.
I congratulate my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on the skill with which he gave expression to what was certainly the general feeling of the Government benches on the Committee stage. Let us assume that the two Amendments in his name in fact broadly represent the approach of the Government today. I am going on with that assumption in unravelling this rather complicated story. Let us assume that he is right and for six-fifths we substitute five-fourths. Later on, I will come to the greater flexibility within the over-all total.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro said, Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division as we know it is not just the old Pickfords writ large by normal expansion but quite a different organisation built round the old Pickfords. There is a danger sometimes when we use the word "Pickfords" of using it in the old or in the new connotation and sometimes confusing hon. Members on both sides of the House. Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), who has undoubtedly played a very important part in the debates on this Bill, is far too modest to think that he has wholly altered the whole trend of Government policy.
The road haulage companies controlled by the old railway companies on 1st January, 1948, operated some 3,900 road vehicles. I think that that is accepted. These included—

Mr. Sparks: rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not want to be interrupted until I have concluded this rather complicated part of my speech.
These included 164 heavy haulage vehicles and 1,257 other special vehicles apart from normal haulage vehicles. On this nucleus the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division as it is today has built. I repeat that it is not a natural growth,


though it is perfectly proper and it has been very efficiently run, but the Special Traffics Division built round the old Pickfords. I understand from the Commission that this division today comprises 426 heavy haulage vehicles and 2,665 other vehicles, including special vehicles. Under the proposals of the Government, in the Bill as now drawn, the Commission, under the six-fifths formula, would be able to retain 200 heavy haulage vehicles, 1,500 other specials and 2,970 ordinary load carriers. If I accepted the principle behind my noble Friend's Amendment and accepted a five-fourths instead of a six-fifths limitation, the Commission would then have 210 heavy vehicles, 1,630 other specials and 3,220 ordinary load carriers. I think that is a fair statement of the two situations—one with the Bill as it stands and the other if we accept my hon. Friend's Amendments.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: How many vehicles does that mean that Pickfords will now comprise altogether, and secondly, what is the present size of Pickfords?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can tell the hon. Gentleman the present total tonnage of Pickfords, which I understand is at present 13,708 tons. The total number of vehicles which they took over was 3,330, to which they have added 593 by voluntary acquisition and 659 as their share of compulsory acquisition. I think that answers one part of the question, and I am not quite certain what the other part was.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the Minister. My argument is directed to this: in the words of the Minister, this division is very efficiently run. For the information of the House, may I be told, therefore, what is the present size of the division and how many fewer vehicles there will be under the Minister's new formula—because the size will be smaller than the present size.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I said that the division was efficiently run, and I was anxious to pay a tribute to the people who work in it; but I did not say that the grouping within that division of this large multiplicity of vehicles was in itself a good thing that is quite another matter. I should not want anybody

working in the Pickfords Division to believe that they were not thought to be, as indeed they are, putting their whole heart into it and doing a very efficient job within the organisation which they are set to run, but whether that is the best organisation is quite another matter. I have given the hon. Gentleman the totals under both the six-fifths and the five-fourths formulae and also the present position of the Pickfords Division. I do not think I can break up those figures in any other way, even to help the hon. Gentleman to make any other point.

Mr. Sparks: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I ask whether he has made any allowance for the horse-drawn vehicles?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was just coming to the horse-drawn vehicles. I was about to move towards the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for East Stirling, or the Amendment which he would have proposed had this debate arisen on that Amendment in page 7, line 23, at end, insert:
and for the purposes of this proviso motor vehicles shall be deemed to include motor vehicles brought into use by the Commission subsequent to the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, to replace horse-drawn vehicles in use at that date.
I was impressed by the argument which was advanced in the House about the mechanisation which had taken place and the consequent loss which the Commission might suffer if no regard were paid to it in our calculations. But, of course, we have to remember, in arriving at a fair total to allot to the Commission for this conversion—if we decide to allot a total at all—the services which horse-drawn vehicles can give compared with the services which motor vehicles can give, and we have to give proper weight to that factor in any of our considerations.
This is an important matter, for we are dealing with a very large number of vehicles indeed. We should also remember that when the licensing authorities issue B licences, in replacement of licences for horse-drawn vehicles, for example, it has been their practice to limit, those licences to a radius, from the centre where the horse-drawn vehicles were operated, roughly equivalent to the radius which the horse-drawn vehicles could cover. It is by no means as simple a matter as might at first appear.
Nevertheless, I am anxious to make some gesture in this field because, as I have said, I was impressed by some of the arguments which have been used. I accepted in principle that something ought to be done, but certain suggestions have been made and certain figures given in various organs of the Press which suggest that we ought to have regard not only to those horse-drawn vehicles which are within the control of the Road Haulage Executive but also to those which are within the control of the Railway Executive where conversion has taken place over the last four or five years.
This does not appear to us to be a reasonable thing to do because, after all, none of the collection and delivery vehicles of the Railway Executive are to be taken over at all, and it would not be fair to make an allotment, against what the Road Haulage Executive were to receive, of some allocation in respect of the large number which the Railway Executive have converted when those Railway Executive vehicles were not to be taken over at all. The total fleet, if I may use that phrase about horse-drawn vehicles, of horse-drawn vehicles of the Railway Executive in December, 1948, was some 24,000. That is now down to some 8,000. On 1st January, 1948, the railway-controlled companies had some 3,868 horse-drawn vehicles. They transferred 300 to the Railway Executive, 2,800 were disposed of and 700 are still with the Road Haulage Executive.
It is this more limited field which I have had to consider in arriving at a fair proportion to add to the total which the Commission will be allowed to retain. I have borne this very carefully in mind in arriving at an over-all figure and I am to inform the House that, broadly, the two Amendments moved by my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South appear to represent what we think would be an equitable and a reasonable solution.
Perhaps I may say a word or two about those Amendments and about the reason I cannot accept them at the moment, quite apart from the fact that they have not been moved. I will detain the House for only a short time. Taking, first, the first Amendment of my noble Friend, in page 7, line 18, in paragraph (1) of the proviso in the Clause the over-all tonnage is limited, as the House now knows, to the pre-nationalisation tonnage plus 20 per

cent. The effect of the first Amendment would be to increase by a further 5 per cent. the tonnage of motor vehicles owned by the former railway companies, raising the proportion from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent., increasing the total unladen weight of the motor vehicles to be retained from six-fifths, in the Bill, to five-fourths in future.
I will give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that, after a few more of the talks which I am having with the Commission on this matter, I will cause to have introduced in another place an Amendment to give expression to that undertaking, so that the total unladen weight of the motor vehicles to be retained by the Commission will rise from six-fifths to five-fourths.
As I told the House, I am also anxious to allow for greater flexibility within the various categories, subject to the consideration that at no point must we allow the retention of a preponderating interest in any one of the categories, because to do so would strike at the very root of the Bill and would be contrary to the declared intention of the Government.
We are certainly prepared to accept the spirit of the second Amendment which the noble Lord has drawn up. Under this Amendment the Commission would be limited only in the tonnage made over in each of the three specific categories, the limit being a tonnage equivalent to the tonnage of the old railway companies plus 30 per cent.; that is within each of the three categories they will have a further freedom of 5 per cent. Subject to this, they may select any vehicles they like up to this tonnage in each of the categories, provided that the total tonnage of vehicles does not exceed the overall limit of five-fourths. If they exceed the 25 per cent. limitation in any one category, there must be a corresponding reduction in another category.
My noble Friend recounted the various categories, and I do not think I need weary the House by reading them again. They appear in the Amendment on the Order Paper. That will be broadly the form which the Amendment will take in another place.
I believe that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East will be more interested to know what will be the total number of vehicles and the total tonnage consequent upon the change and what


will be the improvement from the Commission's point of view. Let us take the three categories. First, heavy haulage: the present number of motor vehicles is 164 and the unladen weight in tons is 1,884; while the new proposals would allow 210 motor vehicles of a maximum unladen weight of 2,500 tons. Under other special vehicles, the figures are 1,257 vehicles with an unladen weight of 3,806 tons; while the new proposals would allow 1,630 vehicles of an unladen weight of 5,000 tons. In the third category, that of ordinary road carriers, the figures are: number of motor vehicles, 2,478, and unladen weight in tons, 8,033; and under the new proposals, the number of vehicles would be 3.220 of an unladen weight of 10,500 tons.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) asked me about the position of trailers. Except in the first category—heavy haulage—in which the vehicle specially constructed to carry abnormal loads is the trailer and not the driving vehicle—the Commission will be entirely free to have as many trailers as they wish. Because in the first category—heavy haulage—it is the trailer which is the important part of the operation, that proviso will not extend to that category.

I apologise to the House for the inevitably complicated nature of what I have had to say. I hope that hon. Members who have been able to follow it, and all who will be able later to read it, will agree that it fulfils the intention of the Government as I broadly hinted at it just before Christmas. It retains the investment of the old railway companies in road haulage; it retains a substantial road haulage undertaking for the Commission; and, subject to the consideration that there cannot be a preponderating interest in any one category, it allows for that flexibility the absence of which was commented upon on both sides of the House, and to which the Commission has drawn my attention.

I hope that in the light of this explanation the Opposition will decide not to press their Amendment to a Division but to await the Government Amendment in another place, consideration of which, when reported here, we shall have a chance of undertaking.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 231.

Division No. 76]
AYES
[4.45 p.m


Acland, Sir Richard
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hardy, E. A.


Albu, A. H.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hargreaves, A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hastings, S.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Deer, G.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Ba[...]on, Miss Alice
Delargy, H. J.
Herbison, Miss M.


Balfour, A.
Dodds, N. N.
Hobson, C. R.


Bartley, P.
Donnelly, D. L.
Holman, P.


Bence, C. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Bonn, Wedgwood
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Houghton, Douglas


Benson, G.
Edelman, M.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Beswiok, F.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hughes, H[...]ter (Aberdeen, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hynd, H. (A[...]rington)


Blyton, W. R.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Boardman, H.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Bowden, H. W.
Fernyhough, E
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Bowles, F. G.
Fienburgh, W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Finch, H. J.
Janner, B


Brockway, A. F.
Follick, M.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Foot, M. M.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D
Forman, J. C.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Freeman, John (Wa[...]ford)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Callaghan, L. J
Gibson, C. W.
Keenan, W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Glanville, James
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Champion, A. J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
King, Dr. H. M.


Chapman, W. D.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Kinley, J.


Chetwynd, G. R
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Clunie, J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Collick, P. H.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lewis, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
MacColl, J. E.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hale, Leslie
McGovern, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McInnes, J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Daines, P.
Hannan, W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)




Mainwaring, W. H.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Reeves, J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Manuel, A. C.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Thurtle, Ernest


Mayhew, C. P.
Rhodes, H.
Tomney, F.


Mellish, R. J.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Messer, F.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Mikardo, Ian
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Mitchison, G. R.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wallace, H. W.


Morley, R.
Ross, William
Weitzman, D.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
West, D. G.


Moyle, A.
Short, E. W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mulley, F. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flim)


Nally, W.
Slater, J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Oliver, G. H.
Snow, J. W.
Wigg, George


Orbach, M.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Oswald, T.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Paget, R. T.
Steele, T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Pannell, Charles
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Winterbottont, Richard (Brightside)


Parker, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Paton, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Yates, V. F


Pearson, A.
Swingler, S. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Sylvester, G. O.



Porter, G.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughlon)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.


Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Alpert, C. J. M.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hurd, A. R.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Deedes, W. F.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Digby, S. Wingfield
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Donner, P. W.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Kaberry, D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Drayson, G. B.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Banks, Col. C.
Drewe, C.
Kerr, H. W.


Barber, Anthony
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Baxter, A. B.
Duthie, W. S.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fell, A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Finlay, Graeme
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fisher, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Linstead, H. N.


Birch, Nigel
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Bishop, F. P.
Fort, R.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Bossom, A. C.
Foster, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bowen, E. R.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Low, A. R. W.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Braine, B. R.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Godber, J. B.
LytteIton, Rt. Hon. O.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McAdden, S. J.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Gower, H. R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Graham, Sir Fergus
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maclean, Fitzroy


BuIlus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Campbell, Sir David
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Carr, Robert
Hay, John
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Cary, Sir Robert
Heald, Sir Lionel
Markham, Major S. F.


Channon, H.
Heath, Edward
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Marples, A. E.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maude, Angus


Clarke, Brig Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Cole, Norman
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mellor, Sir John


Colegate, W. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Molson, A. H. E.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hollis, M. C.
Mott-Radclyffe, C E.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holt, A. F.
Nabarro, G. D. N


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Nicholls, Harmar


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Crouch, R. F.
Horobin, I. M.
Nicelson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hersbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nield, Basil (Chester)







Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Russell, R. S.
Tilney, John


Nutting, Anthony
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Turner, H. F. L.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Turton, R. H.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Vosper, D. F.


Osborne, C.
Scott, R. Donald
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Shepherd, William
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Pitman, I. J.
Soames, Capt. C.
Watkinson, H. A.


Powell, J. Enoch
Spearman, A. C. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Speir, R. M.
Wellwood, W.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Profumo, J. D.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Raikes, Sir Victor
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Remnant, Hon. P
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Renton, D. L. M.
Storey, S.
Wills, G.


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Robertson, Sir David
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wood, Hon. R.


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Teeling, W.



Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roper, Sir Harold
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and




Mr. Redmayne.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 7, line 39 at the end, to insert:
(4) So long as any company to which property has been made over under this section remains under the direct or indirect control of the Commission, any person employed by the company shall be deemed for the purposes of section ninety-five of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relates to terms and conditions of employment of staff) to be employed by the Commission and to be under the direct control of the Commission itself.
The purpose of this Amendment is to give effect to an undertaking that I gave in talks with the Trades Union Congress. I have always been anxious that no unnecessary disturbance should arise in any of the arrangements that have been made for negotiating wages or conditions,of service or any other kindred subjects. But as, no doubt, will be known by those who have followed the Bill in any detail, the effect of the creation of the company structure is to take men working for the Commission out of the machinery for arriving at national agreements which have prevailed hitherto when they have been directly employed by the Commission. I was anxious to take steps to avoid this, because I knew that this was what the unions concerned desired and what the parties on both sides of the House were anxious to achieve.
The effect of this Amendment is to exclude from the Road Haulage Wages Council machinery set up under the Wages Councils Act those employees who will be in companies created under Clause 4 controlled by the Commission, and to leave their terms and conditions of service for negotiation centrally under

the machinery set up in accordance with Section 95 of the Transport Act, 1947.
There is a further Amendment in Clause 6, page 9, line 17 which should be taken in conjunction with this, and I feel that I can commend these two Amendments to the House, because the Wages Councils Act machinery was set up to provide the negotiating machinery where there was no adequate machinery already in existence, and as there is now adequate machinery for all the employees of the Commission in road haulage, I am very anxious not to disturb that machinery. I think there is nothing inconsistent in this point of view because of the original purpose of the Wages Councils Act. I hope that this brief recommendation of these two Amendments will lead to their acceptance without a Division.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5.—(DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY OTHERWISE THAN IN TRANSPORT UNITS.)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 8, line 10, at the end, to insert:
Any directions of the Minister under this subsection may be absolute or conditional, need not be restricted to individual items of property and may require the Commission to consult the Board and, to such extent if any as may be specified in the directions, to obtain the approval of the Board as to the action to be taken.
The purpose of this Amendment is to give effect to an undertaking that I gave on the Committee stage when an Amendment in similar terms was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). This Amendment seeks to link the Disposal


Board with the machinery of disposal even after the assets are disposed of in units and to continue the machinery over the remaining stage when they will be disposed of as chattels. I feel that a very good case was made out for this Amendment in Committee, and I hope that it will be accepted.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I think the House will be grateful to my right hon. Friend for moving this Amendment, which is almost identical to the Amendment that was moved during the Committee stage by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). The main point that he had in mind then was that this Clause not only dealt, as hon. Members opposite seemed to think, with static property, but also might include vehicles. He instanced about 2,000 or 3,000 vehicles in the possession of the Commission which are unserviceable. He went on to say that it would be impracticable to include those unserviceable vehicles in a transport unit which, by the definition of the Bill, is supposed to be a workable business concern. The object of this small and slightly technical Amendment is to enable my right hon. Friend to see that these vehicles which are not included in natural units should be properly disposed of. We are grateful to my right hon. Friend for accepting the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I beg to move, in page 8, line 27, at the end, to insert:
(5) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore in this Act contained, if any property held by the Commission as part of the existing road haulage undertaking (other than property retained by the Commission under the provisions of subsection (3) of this section) has not been disposed of by the Commission by the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-three, the Commission may, if and to the extent that they deem expedient, retain that property instead of disposing of it, and any property that the Commission so retains they shall employ for the purpose of providing directly or indirectly for the public and carrying on such road haulage services by way or carriage of goods for hire or reward as they deem practicable and expedient in the public interest; and for that purpose the Commission may, notwithstanding anything contained in section four of this Act and without obtaining the consent of the Minister in that behalf make over such property or any part thereof and on such terms as the Commission think fit, to any company or companies formed by the Com-

mission under or in pursuance of the provisions contained in subsection (1) of the said section, and the Commission may for the purpose aforesaid cause to be incorporated further such companies notwithstanding that the six months referred to in the said subsection or such longer period as the Minister may allow under the provisions of the said subsection, may have expired.
This is a very important Amendment, and we have little over half an hour in which to consider it because of the Guillotine. The point of the Amendment is this. The Minister has fairly consistently stated, whether he is right or wrong, that it is desirable that the progress of disposal should be as expeditious as is practicable and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. I follow his argument to the end, because if the road haulage services are to be kept in a state of fluid uncertainty over a period of years it obviously will not be conducive to the maintenance of the proper organisation of the industry.
I believe that if an industry is de-nationalised it is desirable to make it an evolutionary process which is carefully calculated not to create chaos during the period of transition. I think that happened under the nationalisation Acts, because whilst the ownership was transferred, the processes of re-organisation were spread over a period and, indeed, have not been completed yet. I think that that is right.
The problem about de-nationalisation is to secure a similar process. It is not so easy, because under de-nationalisation it is bound to be the case that there is a transfer from a co-ordinated comprehensive ownership which is building up a co-ordinated system, to a situation in which the ownerships are several, multifarious and different, and while I will not say that the risks of disorder, muddle and chaos are necessarily certain, I do say that they are much greater. Indeed, I think it would be fair to say that they are probable unless definite steps are taken to guard against them.
5.0 p.m.
The Minister has said it is desirable that the process of disposal should not be unduly delayed. He holds that it should take place as expeditiously as is practicable. There is force in the argument that in that case we must either let the Disposal Board and the Commission engage in the process of disposal over an unlimited period, with


the possibilities of disorder, disorganisation and some degree of chaos, or we can say that when a given date arrives the process of disposal through the Board and the Commission shall come to an end and thereafter the Commission shall become the master of the situation. It should not be prohibited from disposing of the rest, but it should not be obliged to do so.
Thus, the Commission can maintain an ordered and properly supervised system under which the remaining parts of the process can be completed. The Amendment suggests that the operation of the Bill as drafted should obtain until 1st December of this year. That will allow a number of months for the process of disposal to take place. I must make it absolutely clear that we are strongly and definitely opposed to this process. We do not think that disposal ought to take place at all. But we suggest that this process under the Bill if it is not completed by 31st December, 1953, should come to a stop and at that point the Commission should have an option either to dispose of the assets which have not been disposed of or to retain them in its possession as part of a co-ordinated transport system so far as it remains.
That is the proposal in this Amendment. I am pleased to see that in addition to our names, the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) has been put to this Amendment. It will be interesting to hear his point of view as one with transport experience who sits on the opposite side of the House. Possibly he will approach the subject from a different angle. We think that this proposal is rational and sensible, otherwise we may have an indefinite period of uncertainty and confusion in an industry in which it is undesirable that that should obtain. Our purpose was to build up an ordered and co-ordinated transport system. Although the Government believe in de-nationalisation and in selling off these assets, there is a lot to be said for that being done in a way calculated to produce the minimum of confusion and muddle.
Indeed, that was the basis of the argument we had on Wednesday of last week on an Amendment which we moved and which had some connection with an Amendment moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite. This Amendment deals with the same point about whether we can get an

orderly transition, with all the advantages that we can obtain from the British transport system, or whether it should become a confused and somewhat muddled system. I think that I have stated the case for the Amendment. Under the Guillotine, unhappily, and even with the additional day, we have very little time, and I shall content myself with those observations.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I beg to second the Amendment.
I put my name to this Amendment for reasons which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has given, and not from any political point of view. I feel that this is necessary in justice to the thousands of men affected by this change. If the process is to be delayed over an unduly long period, we shall upset their feeling of security and, therefore. the efficiency of the service. This Amendment seems to me not unreasonable.
The Minister has met the views expressed during the Committee stage very generously. If he will give a little consideration to this suggestion I think he will see that it falls into line with what he has frequently said himself—that he hopes that the work of the Disposal Board will not be unduly delayed. If we are to believe what we are told, there is such a desire to acquire these vehicles on the part of people who wish to set up their independent concerns again that there will be do doubt at all that the best of the vehicles will be bought within the period suggested. Those that will remain will not be in the same class or category.
There is a great danger in this Disposal Board machinery. When the best vehicles have gone, those left will be deteriorating just at a time when the British motor industry is finding it difficult to sell new vehicles. Therefore, we shall be adding to the hold-up in the production of vehicles by the manufacturers for use in the United Kingdom. It also seems that something else will be a consequence. We shall be increasing very seriously the need for the levy and the period for which that levy will be in operation.
If this Amendment or something like it is accepted I think that the reasons, and causes, for the levy will be reduced, and no one can pretend that the levy is one of the most popular proposals associated with this Bill. There is one other matter


which I think is relevant. In connection with the Disposal Board, presumably catalogues will be issued. It will be most difficult to put a value on some of the older vehicles which are cannibalised—bits and pieces of old vehicles put together—and which have a limited life.
I do not think that it is asking much to suggest that the Commission shall continue to hold what is now their property for distribution to the areas, especially in those districts where the transport arrangements are not likely to prove attractive to private enterprise. It seems to me that if this Amendment or something like it could be accepted by the Government it would lead to a reduction of the levy, to greater security for the men, and to a smooth change-over which is most important for the users of transport.

Mr. Arthur Holt: I hope that the Minister will not accept this Amendment.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: More Tory than the Tories.

Mr. H. Morrison: He has got to be: he cannot help it.

Mr. Holt: It may be said that on some of these matters the Tory Party are following the Liberal Party. Once we have set our mind to de-nationalise road transport the plan must go right through. Provisions such as the one proposed might lead the Commission to frustrate the wishes of Parliament. For that reason, I feel that it cannot be accepted by those people who wish to see de-nationalisation go through.
I am a little surprised at the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), and I feel that he cannot have taken part in the debate on 4th February, because, when his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was moving an Amendment to encourage the Minister to take longer and longer over this de-nationalisation process, he said this:
We do not see any disadvantage in delay; neither do trade and industry. They are interested in preserving the network of services built up. They do not mind whether the process of transferring these from public to private ownership takes nine months or three years. …—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1884.]

Apparently, he uses one argument on one day, and another argument, entirely opposite, on another day.

Mr. H. Morrison: I appreciate the wish of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) to help the Conservative Party; he has to do so, because his seat depends on their votes, and it is to be expected that he should be more Tory than the Tories. Has he taken account of the fact that the Minister has urged that this process shall be as rapid as. possible?

Mr. Holt: Certainly, it is to be rapid, but that is no reason why, because of its rapidity, we should have it done chaotically. It may possibly be done with the greatest speed that is conducive to an orderly manner, and I hope the Minister will stick to his intentions on that question.

Mr. David Jones: The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) is just about as woolly on this subject as, apparently, his leader was on the wireless the other night on the subject of electoral reform, and that is not surprising. He quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) without in the least remembering that it was on an entirely different point. What my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East was arguing was that the physical assets of the Commission should not be disposed of in this way at all, but that a company should be formed and the shares should be disposed of, and, in that event, there was indeed no hurry.
My hon. Friend was strengthened in that argument by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which said precisely the same thing. They argued that to disrupt the ordinary commercial channels of this country so far as road transport is concerned would be to injure trade and commerce, and, in the reverse direction, if there is, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) said, this terrific desire on the part of road hauliers to return to this industry, the best parts of the industry ought to be swallowed up in a very short space of time. Indeed, the Minister himself, I think on Second Reading, said that he had very great hopes that these would be disposed of in nine months. After all, there is very little difference between nine


months and the period of time which we suggest ought to elapse after the passing of the Bill in order to make the position clear.
The Amendment seeks to place an obligation on the Commission to maintain services available to the public with those parts of their assets that are retained after 31st December, 1953. It may very well be that some of the best paying routes in this country will be taken over. It is true that there is a very lukewarm obligation on the part of the purchasers of these transport units to take over services. They may take them over, but there is no compulsion on their part, and it may very well happen that certain traffic routes up and down the country which are not very remunerative, and, maybe, the actual vehicles, may be withdrawn from the Commission, and there is no obligation imposed by the Minister on the purchasers of transport units to convey that traffic.
It may very well be that, in those circumstances, the Commission would be undertaking these particular jobs with the residue of the vehicles left in their hands. After all, that is not unusual, because there are routes which are now being operated by the Commission, and have been operated for a considerable time, that are not remunerative in themselves, but which are a contribution to an efficient railway service. There may be branch railway lines which have been closed, and in place of which road transport services have been provided. It may very well happen that, in those circumstances, it might be necessary to continue the same service, having regard to all the facts.
5.15 p.m.
There is also the point made by the hon. Baronet about the uncertainty in the minds of the people still engaged in the industry. The Minister, with a great flourish of trumpets a few minutes ago, announced that he was undertaking to make it obligatory on the companies formed by the Commission to insist that the wages and conditions enjoyed by the employees transferred to the companies from the Commission should be not less favourable than those which they now enjoy in the direct employment of the Commission.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I correct that, because it is not an exact interpretation of what I said? This is a rather important matter, liable to misunderstanding. What I said was that the men in that part of the national structure where they have been while direct employees of the Commission will remain under that machinery even when they come under the company structure.

Mr. Jones: Inferentially, that means that, if they remain under that machinery, they must have applied to them the terms and conditions laid down by that machinery. That follows. Therefore, it means that the companies which are formed by the Commission must give to their employees not less favourable terms than those they now enjoy under the direct employment of the Commission, but the Minister has not imposed that obligation on the purchasers of transport units. Not only will the residue of the employees of British Road Services be placed in an almost impossible position, but their best routes will be gone and their best vehicles will be gone, and they will be left with the rough.
This must apparently go on, even if we are to listen to the advice of the hon. Member for Bolton, West, and it will never come to an end. Surely, in the interests of commerce and industry, in the interests of fair play and commonsense, a final date for the machinations of the Disposal Board ought to be stated in the Bill?

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: If there is any vested merit in this proposal from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) it is rather an abstract merit, in that it underlines the necessity for a correct interpretation of the word "operable" in the phrase operable unit. Every speaker following the right hon. Gentleman has taken the view that the sale of these vehicles by the Disposal Board will necessarily result in all the good vehicles going first and all the rest being left to the last. I do not believe that that is so. If these vehicles are sold as operable units, each unit disposed of should comprise good vehicles, indifferent vehicles and a few bad vehicles, or vehicles becoming obsolescent.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to "disorder" and "disorganisation." That is as much wishful thinking as his claims about his transport protest meetings up and down the country which have been such a disgraceful flop. I have no doubt that within a couple of years the whole of the vehicles will be disposed of, and that what the right hon. Gentleman has said will be demonstrated as being nothing more than a Socialist hallucination. I am compelled to close now because my right hon. Friend wants to reply, but I hope he will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must apologise to my hon. Friend; I thought he moved forward to emphasise a point and would then sit down. I apologise for mistaking the physical movement he made.
I do not think the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) really expects me to accept this Amendment, nor do I think he feels much confidence that I will do so even with the added bait thrown in in the form of the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). Incidentally, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the tribute he paid me personally, and I hope that the Labour Party publicity experts will give the same world-wide circulation to it as they have given to certain other observations of my hon. Friend.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) that to accept this Amendment would be to frustrate one of the main purposes of the Bill, and I must congratulate him on having been able to unearth, with the attenuated resources which a small party is bound to have, the wholly apposite quotation of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South which was quite incompatible with the point of view he expressed today. This Amendment would allow the British Transport Commission to retain after the end of 1953, without the approval of the Disposal Board, anything not disposed of by the end of 1953.
The Amendment must be read in conjunction with that to the third line of Clause 1, which was in the names of some of the same hon. Gentlemen, and which proposed that the words "as quickly as is reasonably practicable"

should be omitted from the Bill. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the same hon. Gentlemen are interested in both Amendments.
I said in an earlier discussion that I hoped the disposal machinery might have finished its work by the end of 1953. I must say I was very optimistic in making that observation, but we all learn by events, and I would not repeat the same phrase now. I am anxious to introduce an element of decent speed without the risks which the right hon. Gentleman advanced, but certainly no panic speed, and I stick to the conclusion at which we arrived that "as quickly as is reasonably practicable" is the proper criterion.
Let us consider what would be the result if this Amendment were accepted. It would leave entirely to the discretion of the Commission what vehicles they were to retain after the end of 1953. I think this is asking too much of the Commission, even though I have never suggested that they would not do their utmost to fulfil the intention of Parliament. They could continue to run vehicles directly or they could augment the fleets of the companies under Clause 4, or set up additional companies for this purpose.
The object of this Amendment—and I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon has wholly apprehended it—would be to threaten the disposal machinery with a rush, the very opposite of what we are all anxious to achieve. I cannot believe it would be of much value to the Commission after the better assets had been disposed of to retain the less good assets. Then after the end of 1954, when there would be no 25-mile limit, they would be subject to the steady erosion by wholly free private fleets all over the United Kingdom.
For these reasons—and I seem to have completed the reasons quicker than I thought I should—I must ask the House not to accept the Amendment. I now leave it to an hon. Member opposite to get up indignantly two minutes before half-past five to say that they have not had enough time in which to discuss the matter.

Mr. Callaghan: I did not intend to say that. I intended to say that the Minister had given completely and wholly inade-


quate reasons for rejecting the Amendment, and that it was quite clear that he was very fortunate that we had had only half an hour in which to discuss this particular Amendment because had we had longer he would have been in greater difficulty than he obviously was in trying to find coherent and adequate reasons for opposing the arguments adduced by my right hon. Friend.
It seems to us that as we allowed two Amendments to pass without any discussion at all, the Minister has treated this Amendment with less than the customary examination we would have expected from him, because he has himself admitted that he departs from the original argument he put forward when we were first considering the matter. He has admitted that his original expectation was that the vehicles would be disposed of in a matter of nine months, and, assuming that the Bill became law, that would mean that the disposal, according to his original estimate, would take place by the end of 1953.
The right hon. Gentleman now tells us that he has rejected that particular approach and prefers to rely on the words which I think are to be found in Clause I that the vehicles shall be disposed of "as quickly as is reasonably practicable." But when my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) asked what was meant by that, he was told that the Minister had no time to tell him, although he sat down five minutes before the expiration of the time.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We had a long debate on the words "as quickly as is reasonably practicable," and the hon. Gentleman himself on three occasions misquoted it as "as reasonable as possible." I made a lengthy speech on that occasion which I would be quite prepared to reproduce now if this were not the Report stage and but for the fact that colleagues on both sides of the House would find it tedious.

Mr. Callaghan: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to interrupt, I would he obliged if he would get the alleged quotation accurate. I did not use the words he put into my mouth. He will recall that the debate which we had on the question of what was reasonably practicable was the same debate in which he

expressed the view that disposal would be completed in a period of nine months. Therefore, the answer to the question what was reasonably practicable, was, in these circumstances, his view that nine months was to be the period.
The right hon. Gentleman now tells us that he has departed from that view. He is learning as he goes along, and it is not for us to take advantage of that situation. But what we must all regret is that the country's situation is going to suffer because the Minister is learning too late. I am quite sure that had this Clause been produced today instead of six months ago it would have a very different shape from what it has. Indeed, that is quite clear from the fact that the Minister is going to introduce substantial Amendments to it when it gets to the other place.
The plain truth is that the Government have botched the whole of this procedure. It is obvious that they had no idea of the difficulties involved, because the Minister, who is supposed to be a responsible man, first tells us that he expects to get the matter through in nine months, and, before any further stage takes place, says it will take longer—an indefinite period.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No. I want to correct what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case, I have no time in which to give way. The Minister has misquoted me once. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I can assure hon. Gentleman opposite that I shall not allow them to shout me down. They might at least have the courtesy to behave properly when we on this side of the House are being guillotined by their actions. The plain truth is that the Minister knows as well as we all know that these vehicles are not going to be disposed of in the manner he originally proposed. He knows, and everybody opposite knows, that these vehicles cannot be disposed of in a proper, orderly way in order to recover the price that was paid for them, and yet he insists on rushing ahead in this mad way.
It being Half-past Five o'Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith Me Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 241.

Division No. 77.]
AYES
[5.30 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Paton, J


Albu, A. H.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Pearson, A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Popplewell, E.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Porter, G.


Ba[...]on, Miss Alice
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Balfour, A.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Proctor, W. T.


Bartley, P.
Hardy, E. A.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bence, C. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Reeves, J.


Benn, Wedgwood
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Benson, G.
Hastings, S.
Reid, William (Camiachie)


Beswick, F.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Rhodes, H.


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Miss M.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A


Blenkinsop, A.
Hobson, C. R.
Roberts, Albert (Nermanton)


Blyton, W. R.
Holman, P.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pan[...]ras, N.)


Boardman, H.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bowden, H. W.
Houghton, Douglas
Ross, William


Bowles, F. G.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Short, E. W.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Slater, J.


Callaghan, L. J.
Janner, B.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Champion, A. J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Snow, J. W.


Chapman, W. D.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Sorensen, R. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Clunie, J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Sparks, J. A


Collick, P. H.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Steele, T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
K[...]enan, W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Cove, W. G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Summerskili, Rt. Hon. E.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Kinky, J.
Swingler, S. T.


Grossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sylvester, G. O.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dairies, P.
Lewis, Arthur
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
MacColl, J. E.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McGovern, J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McInnes, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Deer, G.
McLeavy, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Delargy, H. J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Tomney, F.


Dodds, N. N.
Ma[...]Pherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Viant, S. P.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalffiu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wallace, H. W.


Edelman, M.
Manuel, A. C.
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Mayhew, C. P.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards W. J. (Stepney)
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Messer, F.
West, D. G.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mikardo, Ian
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mitchison, G. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fernyhough, E.
Moody, A. S.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fienburgh, W.
Morley, R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Finch, H. J.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wigg, George


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Follick, M.
Moyle, A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Foot, M. M.
Mulley, F. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Forman, J. C.
Nally, W.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Oliver, G. H.
Wyatt, W. L.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Orbach, M.
Yates, V. F.


Gibson, C. W.
Oswald, T.
Younger, Rt. Hon K


Glanville, James
Paget, R. T.



Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Pannell, Charles
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Hannan.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Pargiter. G. A.





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Arbuthnot, John
Banks, Col. C.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Barber, Anthony


Alport, C. J. M.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Baxter, A. B.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Astor, Hon. J. J.
Beach, Maj. Hicks


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton


A[...]truther-Gray, Major W. J.
Baldwin, A. E.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)




Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Birch, Nigel
Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nutting, Anthony


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Odey, G. W.


Bossom, A. C.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bowen, E. R
Hay, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Heath, Edward
Osborne, C.


Braise, B. R.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wylhenshawe)
Pi[...]kthorn, K. W. M


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pilkington, Capt. R A


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitman, I. J.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Holland-Martin, C. J
Powell, J. Enoch


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hollis, M. C.
Price, Henry (Lewisham W.)


Bullard, D. G.
Holt, A. F.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Profumo, J. D.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Burden, F. F. A.
Horobin, I. M.
Redmayne, M.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Remnant, Hon. P.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Campbell, Sir David
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Carr, Robert
Hurd, A. R.
Robertson, Sir David


Carson, Hon. E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Channon, H.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Roper, Sir Harold


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Russell, R. S.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Cole, Norman
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Colegate, W. A.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Kaberry, D.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Keeling, Sir Edward
Scott, R. Donald


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerr, H. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lambert, Hon. G.
Shepherd, William


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Langford-Holt, J. A
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Crouch, R. F.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Leathor, E. H. C.
Soames, Capt. C.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Speir, R. M.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T
Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Linslead, H. N.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Stevens, G. P.


Deedes, W. F.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Storey, S.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Low, A. R. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Donner, P. W.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Teeling, W.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Draws, C.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Tilney, John


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
M[...]Adden, S. J.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Duthie, W. S
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Turner, H. F. L.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Turton, R. H.


Fell, A
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Vosper, D. F.


Finlay, Graeme
Maclean, Fitzroy
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R F.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Fort, R.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Foster, John
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Markham, Major S. F.
Watkinson, H. A.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Marples, A. E.
Wellwood, W.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maude, Angus
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Medlicott, Brig. F
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Mellor, Sir John
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Godber, J. B.
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gower, H. R.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Wood, Hon. R.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Nabarro, G. D. N.



Grlmston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nicholls, Harmar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Mr. Richard Thompson and


Hare, John J. H.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Mr. Wills.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Nield, Basil (Chester)

Clause 6.—(COMMISSION'S VEHICLES TO REQUIRE LICENCES BUT TO BE FREE FROM TWENTY-FIVE MILE LIMIT.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): I beg to move, in page 8, line 34, to leave out "three," and to insert "six."
This Amendment seeks to carry out the undertaking given during the Committee stage by my right hon. Friend, and as not all hon. Members were present on that occasion I will explain what it does. Incidentally, may I welcome back the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) whom we are glad to see looking rejuvenated after his sojourn at wherever it was?
By this Amendment we extend from three months to six months the period after the passing of the Act during which the Commission can continue to operate goods vehicles without carriers' licences under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. The Amendment in the next line makes the same extension of time during which the Commission can lodge applications and then continue to operate the vehicles concerned until such applications can be considered by the licensing authority. There is very often apt to be a time-lag in this matter. There is also a consequential Amendment to the First Schedule on page 45, line 18, dealing with this matter, which merely carries out the intimation given during the Committee stage.

Mr. Ernest Davies: May I say how much we welcome the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary. It is rarely that he intervenes in these debates, and we think he is putting rather a heavy burden on his Minister. On this occasion we are particularly glad to hear him, because he has gone half-way to meet us.
It will be recalled that during the Committee stage we moved an Amendment that this period be extended to 12 months. We are reasonably content that it should be increased to six months, although we regret he has been unable to go the whole way, as we still consider the Commission will be in difficulties in regard to all its applications for licences. But in view of the concession which has been made, and in view of the really important

and far-reaching speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, we do not propose to divide the Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 35, leave out "three," and insert "six."—[Mr. Braithwaite.]

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 9, line 17. after, "Commission." to insert:
or by any company under the direct or indirect control of the Commission to which property has been made over under section four of this Act.
This Amendment is consequential to the one I moved a few minutes ago, in Clause 4, in page 7, line 39. It links with the same intention, as I then explained, of seeing that the creation of a company structure does not take those who work for the company under the Commission outside their national wage negotiating machinery.
The Amendment in Clause 4 applies Section 95 of the 1947 Act. This Amendment, by providing that
vehicles specified in licences which are being used"—
by Section 4 companies—
shall be deemed to be vehicles not specified in any licence,
excludes workers of such companies from the scope of the Road Haulage Wages Council machinery. It is not for me to master the mysteries of Parliamentary draftsmanship, but I am assured that this does give effect to our intention, and as such I commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7.—(REPEAL, AS FROM END OF 1954, OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO TWENTY-FIVE MILE LIMIT.)

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: I beg to move, in page 10, line 3, at the end, to insert:
(3) The Minister may give directions to the Commission as respects the issue of permits referred to in section fifty-two of the Transport Act, 1947, and such directions may require the Commission to grant any particular application or any particular class of application for such permits.
The purpose of this Amendment is to complete the intention in subsection (2) of Clause 7. The existing subsection (2) gives protection to holders of original permits and, by the same token, those


who now have substituted permits in place of original permits; but there is no indication of such similar protection to those who may desire or who may have ordinary permits both at the present time and in the intervening period up to the end of 1954.
Since October, 1951, at the coming into office of the present Government it has, by and large. been the policy of the British Transport Commission to maintain the status quo about the issue of original, substituted and ordinary permits. The purpose of this Amendment is to make sure that the status quo is maintained until the end of 1954. In other words, we are asking the Minister, in giving him these powers, to exercise the practice which has been in existence for the last 18 months. We are anxious to secure that there shall be no change or variation of this policy during the time until the 25-mile limit is abolished.
There are many hauliers in the country who hoped that this Bill would mean the end of the 25-mile limit. There are reasons, which have been explained, why it has not been possible to abolish that limit in this Bill and that it will not be possible to do so until the end of 1954. I hope that all those hauliers who have been disappointed at the non-abolition of this limit will realise that the reason why it has to be maintained until the end of next year is by the very fact that the Transport Act of 1947 ever found its way on to the Statute Book. They would not now be disappointed if the 25-mile limit had never been imposed by the 1947 Act, and I want that to be clearly understood by all the hauliers in the country.
If it is not possible, and, in view of the necessity to try to sell transport in units there are good reasons why it is not, to abolish the limit until the end of next year, at least we want to make sure that those people who wish to carry out their ordinary lawful undertakings in haulage shall be allowed to do so. We ask the House to make certain that those who want original permits, substituted permits and ordinary permits will, by means of this Amendment, added to the existing provisions in subsection (2), be allowed them for the next 18 months.
It is very necessary that there should be such a system of permits in any kind of general haulage undertaking through-

out the country. The Commission appreciated that in order to give good service to traders in this country, and to stop disruption and distortion, special permits for certain times and over certain periods of one to three years were necessary. That is another reason for this Amendment. If the Minister has power to authorise the Commission to grant these permits it will be possible, where necessary, to stop disruption or upset of the haulage undertaking. We ask the House to give the Minister those powers.
I hope the Minister will accept this Amendment and make certain, by the addition of these words, that the system of permits and the policy of the Commission, which has been in existence since October, 1951, will be ensued for the next 18 months; and that in due time when the limit is abolished, the whole haulage service of this country will be able to operate for the benefit of traders and public alike.

Mr. Richard Fort: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am aware that the drafting of this Amendment is perhaps not up to those standards which distinguish Government draftsmen because, as the Minister himself said on an earlier Amendment, the mysteries of draftsmanship are obscure even to the best instructed, and they are certainly so to those who are least instructed.
We should be grateful if he would accept at least the intention of the Amendment, even though he may have to say that the drafting difficulties are such that he cannot introduce the necessary wording into the Bill. Our intention is that what has already been granted to the holders of the original licences should be extended to the holders of the ordinary licences, and if he can give us either an Amendment to that effect or an undertaking on the matter we shall be very grateful to him.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) said, the Bill does end the 25-mile limit though, because of reasons which he has advanced quite correctly—the need to effect a smooth transfer to private enterprise—its abolition cannot take place at once. On Third Reading I hope to say something more about the implication of that fact.
On the question of permits I have a statement to make to the House which I hope will be of interest and value and which may cause my bon. Friends to withdraw their Amendment. As the House knows, under Clause 7 (2), original and substituted permits will be continued and cannot be revoked or reviewed by the Commission early in 1954, as was provided in the Act of 1947. As a result, original and substituted permit holders need have no fears. The permits will go on until the end of 1954, when the 25-mile limit will end.
There are some 7,000 of these permits which are still current. As the hon. Gentleman said, the real difficulty arises in connection with ordinary and job permits—ordinary permits issued for three or four months and job permits for round about seven days. They will continue as before, revocable at the discretion of the Commission. The numbers vary between 2,500 and 3,000 ordinary permits and between 60 and 70—at any one time—job permits.
If I were to accept this Amendment I should be given the power to issue directions to the Commission on the question of the issue of permits and I should be authorised to tell them that they must issue permits, instead of leaving it to their discretion, until 1954, whether or not to grant an ordinary or job permit to holders of A and B licences.
I wish I could accept this Amendment, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South, because he would not be in this House if it were not for an act of kindness on my part, in that the constituency which he represents was carved out of my constituency. But I feel that that close association cannot be regarded in Parliament as an adequate reason for accepting an Amendment which I think is not desirable. I wish I could have accepted the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort). I cannot do so for reasons which I think are clear to most hon. Members who have followed the transport activities of the last few years.
The Commission remain under a great difficulty. They have a statutory duty to do their best to make ends meet in

a period that will be one of acute difficulty to them until they know whether the vehicles at their command are adequate to carry the traffic offered, and I am not prepared to restrict and hamper them in the particular way suggested by the Amendment.
But I can say that in July last year the Commission instructed the Road Haulage Executive that, in general, existing ordinary permits should be continued or renewed in accordance with recent practice, but that permits should not be issued to new applicants unless the resources of the Commission were unable satisfactorily to meet the customers' requirements. Where there was evidence that permits had been abused it was left to the Executive to use their discretion whether to revoke them or refuse to renew them on that ground.
In areas where the demand for transport had declined owing to trade recession or other causes, the Commission thought it reasonable that the impact of the decline was to be fairly shared among all concerned.
The Chairman of the Commission has recently informed me that no change has been made or is contemplated in this policy, which, I think the House will agree, is a fair and even a generous one. In fact, the Commission are of opinion that its practical application may have meant that, in a desire to be just, the Executive have surrendered a certain amount of business which they could well have undertaken themselves.
I should like to pay a tribute to the Commission and to the Executive for the co-operation they have shown in this matter and in view of this I would ask my hon. Friends to be good enough to withdraw their Amendment.

Mr. Ernest Davies: This is the second time this afternoon that the Minister has referred to the fact that on Third Reading he proposes to make a statement on some very important issue which we are discussing—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry to have to interrupt, but the hon. Gentleman cannot—to use a colloquialism—get away with that. No Amendment has been put down with regard to the 25-mile limit. If there were, I should have been delighted to make a statement on the Report stage.

Mr. Davies: But there was an Amendment on the Committee stage which was Guillotined and could not be discussed. If the Minister had waited until I had finished my sentence he would not have needed to get up so rapidly. I was going to add that it was very lamentable that the Guillotine worked in such a way that we were unable to discuss an important Amendment such as that dealing with the 25-mile limit, and only when we have reached the stage where it is impossible to introduce certain Amendments does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make important statements in connection with them.
I was glad to hear that the Minister does not propose to accept this Amendment, because its acceptance would have been most unfortunate. While he was speaking I was wondering to what extent he had influenced the Commission to follow their present policy. On the other hand, I was glad to hear him pay a tribute to the Commission and, particularly, to the Road Haulage Executive in regard to the generous policy they are following in regard to permits.
He stated that the Executive had had to surrender business which they might otherwise have had in regard to the exercising of their discretion in the renewing of the original permit and the granting of other permits. I hope the Minister will remember that when he next tells us that the Road Haulage Executive is unable to make profits at present, and that it is not doing well. I hope he will bear that in mind when for that reason he casts aspersions upon it, as he is inclined to do. It is quite clear that the interference which has taken place with the business of the Road Haulage Executive as a result of the introduction of this Bill has been very largely responsible for their difficulties, and what the Minister has said this afternoon regarding the permits emphasises that.
All I wished to say was that we are glad that this Amendment is not being accepted by the Minister. The fact that it had to be introduced and that he had to make the remarks he has made emphasises the difficulties which arise through the muddle and confusion which has resulted from the dislocation caused by this Bill. This Amendment would not have needed to be put down had the Bill itself been drafted with a little less confusion.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman, for good reasons which he has given, cannot accept the Amendment, but I hope he will keep an open mind on this very important matter because two conflicting considerations arise. The first is one with which we are all familiar. That is the need to dispose satisfactorily of that part of the road haulage undertaking which is not to be continued by the Commission. We understand that the 25-mile limit has to be retained and we realise that there must not be too great a relaxation, but another consideration comes into conflict with that. It is that during the transitional period we have still to maintain a flexible system of transport. Unless the Commission are prepared to grant special and ordinary permits when the consumer need arises for them to do so, we shall not have that free flow of transport during the transitional period which the public will need.
What I respectfully suggest is needed in the Bill but which is not in it at the moment is the necessity to which the Amendment calls attention. It is necessary for something to be in the Bill to draw the attention of the Commission specifically to the duty, to which it ought to have regard, to issue permits in accordance with its discretion in such a way as to meet the special need which will arise during the transitional period, for the very reason that it is a transitional period.

Mr. Nabarro: I want to appeal to my right hon. Friend in connection with a matter of which I am sure he will be very well informed. A large part of his constituency represents horticultural interests, and so does mine. In the period until April, 1952, the British Transport Commission issued a number of special permits which were restricted only in their mileage to 150 miles radius specifically for the purpose of enabling horticultural growers to get perishable goods sent, in the case of Worcestershire, to Liverpool, Bristol and South Wales.
Those permits were arbitrarily withdrawn a few months ago on the plea that the British Road Services organisation were able to look after the traffic. In fact the nationalised organisation did attempt to look after the traffic for a


period between April, 1952, and the end of last year. It did so somewhat unsatisfactorily and there was a great deal of complaint. Now the decision is that the road services organisation shall be disbanded steadily and the incoming vehicles, which we hope will not operate on permits after 1954, will not be available for the traffic during 1953. I think, therefore, that there is a special case in the matter of perishable goods for the British Transport Commission to behave with a great deal of latitude and benevolence in granting permits for distances up to 150 to 200 miles in order to take the place of the services which were only operated quite temporarily—for no more than six or eight months— by the nationalised undertaking.

Mr. Cole: In view of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, and in the hope that the British Transport Commission will not be oblivious to the ideas which inspired this Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO GROUNDS FOR GRANTING OR REFUSING LICENCES.)

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to move, in page 10, line 4, to leave out subsection (1).
It may be for the convenience of the House, at the same time, to consider the following Amendment, in page 10, to leave out lines 36 to 38.
I move this Amendment because the suspicions we expressed from this side about this subsection were not allayed by the remarks made by the Minister and the Attorney-General during the Committee stage. The Minister at first rather brushed aside the accusations we launched at him that he was making a fundamental change in the licensing system established under the 1933 Act and he had to call to his aid the Attorney-General. But, when the Attorney-General was pressed from this side of the Committee, he rather let the Minister down and showed that the effect of the changes in the 1933 Act licensing procedure was precisely what we had suggested. It relegated the position of the public interest and put ahead of it the interests of transport users and those

providing facilities. The general interest came third, whereas the interests of transport users and those providing facilities came first and second respectively.
We stated then, and I repeat it, that this amendment to the 1933 Act either means something or it does not. Quite clearly, it is introduced into this Bill—where it is quite out of place and irrelevant—for some ulterior purpose and that was revealed during our previous debate. The Minister revealed that this fulfilled the objective of the Government to increase competition in road haulage; that he would make it easier for licences to be granted to applicants. In other words, it would be easier to enter into the road haulage business than under the present interpretation and administration of the 1933 Act. He stated:
This is an attempt to get greater freedom in the granting of licences. It is an attempt to get ordered freedom.
He also said:
Because it appears to us to be part and parcel of the general intention of the Government in this field to introduce a greater basis of competition and freedom, and as we think this is in regard to the whole of the activities of the Commission we feel we should provide facilities for the general liberalising of the granting of licences by this new emphasis and under this new order of priority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 538–9.]
In those words the Minister made it quite clear that there was a substantial change taking place in those provisions of the 1933 Act which laid down the basis on which the licences shall be granted and considerations which the licensing authority shall take into account. In my view, the changes which it is proposed to make undermine the successful operation of the 1933 Act which made it clear that the licensing authorities had to give primary attention to what was the public interest as a whole. That was the criterion they had to apply when they decided whether or not an applicant should receive an A or B licence. They had to put the public interest as a whole first.
The public interest has been interpreted by those responsible for administering the Act as, to prevent the provision of excess facilities to the extent that they endangered the economic operation of existing undertakings; that is to say, the successful continuance of the operation of the railways and of the road haulage


industry was a general matter which had to be taken into account when there were applications for new licences.
The public interest was considered to be, among other things, the providing of sufficient security of tenure, as it were, to those already in the industry, to give them a measure of protection against new entrants and to keep them free from unfair competition so as to enable public service facilities to continue to be provided by road and rail. The protection was considered necessary to make sure that public services were provided—unremunerative as well as remunerative—and that was the basis of the Act. But equally, of course, public interest required that matters of public safety should be looked after and that there should be protection of the working conditions of those employed in the industry or the conditions of the vehicles and, of course, there should not be wasteful capital expenditure through the provision of excess facilities.
All these are matters which are taken into account by the licensing authorities when the applicants appear before them, but under the proposals which are now being made in this subsection it would mean that these considerations, the considerations of maintaining the public service on the railways and on the roads, of the working conditions in the industry, of congestion on the roads, of public safety, and all the rest, as well as the economic considerations of the provision of excess facilities, would be in the second or third place; that if someone came along and said he required transport, required new services to be provided, and someone came along and said, "I am able to provide them for you," that would have prior consideration over the other considerations of the public interest to which I have referred.
Further, these changes provide that charges shall be taken into account, and it is quite clear that the—[Interruption.] Yes, the changes do provide that charges can be taken into account.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I was merely pointing out that the hon. Gentleman is making almost the identical speech he made on a previous occasion.

Mr. Davies: When the noble Lord compares the two copies of HANSARD he will find that the Minister and the

Attorney-General, in the statements they made, provided us with new ammunition, and it is necessary to use what they said to re-emphasise—if I may so put it—how right we were when we suggested that the proposals now before us are going to undermine control of the transport system of this country if they are fully carried out.
After all, it is necessary to remember, when considering these licensing proposals and the suggestion of the Minister who wants to increase the amount of competition on the roads, that transport does not produce goods: it simply carries them; and that the same amount of goods is going to be carried; and that if we have more competition there will be more vehicles on the roads. It means that we are to have an increase in the amount of empty running, or partial loading, and that is economic waste which we cannot afford at the present time.
As I was saying when the noble Lord interrupted me, if, under the new provisions which are now before us, anyone came along and said he required a different form of transport, fresh services, and so on, and there were someone willing to provide them, and he were willing to offer to carry those goods at a lower price, then, presumably automatically, the licensing authority would grant that licence. It might not be in the public interest that that licence should be granted. It is easy to find persons who say that they require additional services when these services can be provided more cheaply; but that may be against the public interest, because it may be against the successful operation of the transport industry as a whole.
That is the case which we make against this change. We oppose the change in the licensing system, and facilitating new entrants into the industry, because no proof has been produced by the Minister in his previous speeches that there is a desire on the part of the industry for this amendment to take place. It has not been demanded either by the industry or, so far as we are aware, by transport operators, or, for that matter, by the licensing authorities themselves. In Committee the Minister admitted that he had received no representations whatsoever from the licensing authorities that the present procedure was inadeqate or that it required amendment.
6.15 p.m.
The second reason for opposing this is that it does make a fundamental change in the procedure without any prior inquiry, and that is not relevant to this Bill. As I have pointed out previously, an inquiry is taking place into the licensing procedure for road passenger services, and if the Minister considered that necessary in that case, surely it would be preferable to have an inquiry into this, prior to making the change that is now proposed.
The third reason I would advance for opposition is that this destroys the major principle on which the licensing system was established, and on which it has been administered by agreement by all parties. The original 1933 Act had the support of both sides of the House. Finally, it would lead to increased competition, which would be wasteful, which would increase congestion on the roads, and, thereby, the danger on the roads; and it is contrary to the public interest.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give more convincing arguments for this change than he was able to give on the last occasion. I note that the Attorney-General is not here to support him this time, for which the Minister may be very grateful, as the Attorney-General made it quite clear last time that the change which was taking place was a change which would result in greater competition—by implication, greater competition—by relegating the public interest to the third place.
The Minister, in my view, is not only, through this Bill, destroying the public system of road haulage but through the back door, as it were, he is taking another step which is going to endanger the financial solvency of the transport industry of this country by undermining the system which has prevailed since 1933, and which, although by no means perfect, has prevented a return to the conditions which did prevail before 1933, when there was excessive provision of transport in this country which was wasteful and unnecessary. I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts on this Clause, in the same way as he is beginning to have a little enlightenment on one or two aspects of the Bill.

Mr. G. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman explain further his third point about

increased competition being wasteful? Before the war there was a slump, but now we have full employment and increasing production. Why should increased competition be wasteful? May it not lead to lower charges and, therefore, to more traffic?

Mr. Davies: No. As I said, transport does not produce goods. We can increase our transport as much as we like, but by increasing transport we do not produce a single ton more of coal or a single new machine tool.

Mr. Wilson: What about increased demand?

Mr. Davies: Even if costs or charges in a few cases are slightly less, that in itself will not stimulate production. I do not think that anyone can deny that if we increase the number of vehicles on the roads to carry the same amount of goods those vehicles will not be used as economically as they otherwise would be. That is to say, at present the Road Haulage Executive is carrying the same amount of goods in fewer vehicles. Fewer vehicles are being used on the roads of Britain today to carry the same amount of goods that more vehicles carried before; which was, I say, wasteful.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.
Having regard to the Guillotine my remarks will be very brief. Indeed, there is only one point that I want to make. When this Amendment and this Clause were considered in Committee the Attorney-General came here specially to explain what this somewhat difficult and technical amendment of previous legislation means. He provided an explanation which was very useful to the Committee, particularly to this side of it, and I now wish to protest vigorously against the fact that neither of the Law Officers of the Crown, neither the Attorney-General nor the Solicitor-General, is here today on what is, after all, a legal and a rather difficult matter. I think it is scandalous that we should be deprived of their authoritative opinion on this point, the more so after what happened in Committee.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has on this


occasion repeated the statements which were made ad nauseum in Committee, to the effect that this Clause and the subsection which it is sought to leave out relegate the general public interest to a lower positon of priority than that which it occupies under the 1933 Act. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would take the trouble to look at the provisions of the 1933 Act and to read those of this subsection, and then compare the two, they would not need the assistance of the Law Officers of the Crown to satisfy themselves that the exact opposite is the effect of this subsection.
The 1933 Act directs the licensing authority to have regard primarily to the interests of the public generally. It indicates the primary object to which the licensing authority must direct his mind. It does not specify what the other considerations are to be. It then subdivides "the public generally" into two categories: persons requiring transport, and persons providing tranpsort. The 1933 Act puts those two categories, in the eyes of the licensing authority, on an exactly equal footing one with another.
The present position under the law, therefore, is that the public interest generally has to be taken into account primarily, though other considerations can enter the mind of the licensing authority, and as between the two classes within the general public interest which the Act specifies, no preference is given to those requiring transport over those providing transport.
Now we turn to see what change is made in the positon by the subsection which it is sought to leave out. The subsection would so amend the 1933 Act that the interest of the public generally is, not the primary factor but the only factor that the licensing authority is entitled to take into account. That is the first change. The second change is that, instead of putting the two sections of the public—those requiring and those providing transport—on an even footing, it gives a decided preference and priority to that part of the public which requires transport over that part of the public which provides transport.
In fact, the effect of this Clause is to give the general public interest not merely priority but an exclusive right to be considered by the licensing authority, and to

give the interests of those requiring transport—which, after all, is the vast majority of the whole public—a decided priority over the interests of those providing transport. I should like to hear any hon. Member say that he does not consider that either of those changes is in the public interest. So far from making the public interest, in the generally understood sense of the term, secondary or tertiary, the subsection which hon. Members opposite want to leave out puts it at the top.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I would draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman again to the Attorney-General's statement, where he says, regarding the interest of the public generally,
not primarily or secondly but, I presume, tertiary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 532.]
It is quite clear that the Attorney-General took the point of view that the interests of the public generally did not come First, as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, but third.

Mr. Powell: I recommend to the hon. Gentleman not merely a renewed study of the subsection he is proposing to leave out, but also a renewed study of the Attorney-General's remarks. He will then find that the expression "tertiary" and that part of the Attorney-General's argument relates to the fact that the two categories—those requiring and those providing transport—do not make up the whole of the public interest at any given time, and that there is implicit in the word "including" a third undefined section of the public interest, both in the 1933 Act and in the Act as it will stand amended. What will come first among the general public interests, which alone, after this Amendment has been made, can be taken into account, is the interest of those requiring transport, which will be given priority over those providing transport.
I share the doubts of my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) whether the hon. Gentleman was in order in referring at all to the question of charges on Amendments neither of which relates to the part of the Clause dealing with charges. Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman did make those remarks, I ought to point out that his interpretation of subsection (3, b) was incorrect. He said it means that if an


applicant comes before a licensing authority and says that he can do a particular job at a lower charge than it is at present being done, then he must automatically be given the licence. That was the expression used by the hon. Member for Enfield, East.
There is nothing whatever in this Clause which makes it an automatic requirement that anyone who claims, or indeed proves, that he can do the job cheaper will receive a licence. All this does is to enable the licensing authority to take that factor into account with all other factors. In so far as it is a factor affecting those requiring transport, he will give it priority along with all the other factors which affect the interests of persons requiring transport.
So far, therefore, from the licensing authority being put under a narrower limitation, the licensing authority is enabled to take a wider purview of the general interests of the public, which as a result of this Clause will be taken into account far more fully than under the 1933 Act.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We had a very interesting debate on this in Committee, reported to the extent of 39 columns of HANSARD, and occupying one hour and 50 minutes under what we were told by the Opposition was a very tight Guillotine. I am not in the least objecting to this use of time for such a purpose, because it is a very important purpose, but I say that we are entitled, if more time is now to be taken on this, to expect that some new arguments should be adduced.
I can say to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) that we have no ulterior motive in mind at all, but it does seem to us desirable, particularly so now that the railways are to have much greater freedom in charging, that changes, the need for which has stood out a mile for some years, should be made at the first convenient opportunity. That opportunity now presents itself, and we are taking it. We believe that much greater emphasis should be laid on the needs of the consumer, but the Amendment would prevent that. We believe, secondly, that the onus of proof that no new service is needed and that the existing facilities are adequate should rest on the objector and not on the applicant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has, with his usual clarity, put the essential issue. As he pointed out, the wording specifies the interests of the public generally as being the first consideration, including primarily those of persons requiring transport, and, secondly, those of persons providing transport.
6.30 p.m.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, whose absence we all regret—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—has been much quoted in this debate, and I should like to ask hon. Members why, when they quoted the Attorney-General, they did not also quote this:
With great respect to those who may think otherwise, I should have thought that there is no justification at all for saying that the public interest is any less to be considered—in fact, on the wording it is actually given more consideration than before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 10th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 531.]
So much, I hope, for the first issue—that of the public interest.
As for the second issue—the need for the onus of proof that the existing services are adequate to be shifted, and for the question of charges to be taken into account, I have nothing to add to the very lengthy speech which I made in Committee. In the latter case, I advanced many case law instances where charges were very relevant but had to be disregarded. I think that the consequences of a later Amendment, in the name of an hon. Member opposite, whereby he is anxious that those requiring transport facilities should automatically have their rights granted, might well put the question of costs into a primary position and turn it into the deciding factor, which we certainly do not think it ought to be. We believe that costs should be one of the criteria to which the licensing authority should address themselves—a proposition which seems to us to be self-evident particularly now, in the light of the greater freedom on railway charges.
I assure the House and the Opposition in particular that we had no intention of going back to the pre-1933 situation, and we have no ulterior purpose at all. The licensing system, in our view, fulfils two main duties: first, to secure enforcement of the maximum standard of safety in the


public interest in matters such as roadworthiness of vehicles; and, secondly, to prevent wasteful competition and to secure that the supply of public transport is kept generally in balance with the need. The changes that we make, although important, should not be looked at out of perspective, and I hope that the House, having had a second chance to ventilate this matter, will decide to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: What has the Minister done with the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General? Are they in the Tower or in the Ministry of Transport?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Unlike some previous Administrations, we are all on the best of terms and very busy about the public business.

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that the business which the Attorney-General is busy on at the moment will be of more value to the country than the intervention he made on the Transport Bill. We saw him only on one occasion, and he it was who was responsible for the 39 columns of discussion which we had on that occasion. He burst in, blew up and blew out, leaving the Minister to hold the baby.
I must say that the Minister has done his best. He has made a very valiant effort this afternoon to overcome the discomfiture that he must have felt after having had the eloquent interpretation of the Attorney-General about the matter we are discussing. No one knows better than the Minister that he and the Attorney-General, within perhaps half-an-hour, gave two precisely opposite interpretations of the same Clause of the Bill. We have become used to saying that this is a muddled Bill. We always knew that it was a muddled and chaotic Government, but we did not expect that that muddle and confusion would be shown by two Ministers within the space of half-an-hour on the same particular phrase.

I do not blame the Minister this afternoon for leaving the Attorney-General behind. We put down this Amendment to give the Minister an opportunity of clarifying his position, and we hoped also to see the Attorney-General, whose interpretation of the law needs clarifying perhaps even more than that of the Minister. Shortly, the point is this. On 10th December, the Attorney-General said that the wording of the Bill meant that the first thing that was considered when a licence was to be granted was
persons requiring facilities of transport

and, later, the Minister said:
In my view, and I speak with some knowledge in this matter"—

I thought it was a little unkind of him to give a dig at his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in that way—
, though, I admit, no legal knowledge having regard to the interest of the public primarily' … means that if, in the view of the licensing authority, there was too much traffic operating on a road, they would take that into account first…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 531–547.]
In other words, he was saying that the public interest would, in certain instances, come ahead of that of those requiring transport. The Attorney-General had by that time left the debate; and I do not blame him.

We do not wish to spend any more time on this matter. We believe that the modification of the words, in so far as they have any meaning at all, is a weakening of the public interest. We believe that they will place the public interest rather lower in the scale than it was, and place private interests in a relatively higher position than it was before. We are opposed to that, and I therefore ask my hon. Friends, without further ado. to divide the House.

Question put, "That the words proposed be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 210.

Division No. 78.]
AYES
[6.36 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Baker, P. A. D.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Baldwin, A. E.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Banks, Col. C.
Birch, Nigel


Arbuthnot, John
Barber, Anthony
Bishop, F. P.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) 
Baxter, A. B
Bossom, A. C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R (Blackburn, W.)
Beach, Maj. Hicks
Bowen, E. R.


Astor, Hon. J. J
Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Boyd.Carpenter, J. A.




Boyle, Sir Edward
Heald, Sir Lionel
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Heath, Edward
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (H[...]ndon, N)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Osborne, C.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Peyton, J. W. W.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bullard, D. G.
Hollis, M. C.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Holt, A. F.
Pitman, I. J.


Bollus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Powell, J. Enoch


Burden, F. F. A.
Horobin, I. M.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Campbell, Sir David
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Profumo, J. D.


Carr, Robert
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Carson, Hon. E.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Remnant, Hon. P


Cary, Sir Robert
Hurd, A. R.
Renton, D. L. M.


Channon, H.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Robertson, Sir David


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cole, Norman
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Roper, Sir Harold


Colegate, W. A.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Russell, R. S.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Cranberne, Viscount
Kaberry, D.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Ro[...]hdale)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kerr, H. W.
Scott, R. Donald


Crouch, R. F.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shepherd, William


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Leather, E. H. C.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Deedes, W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Soames, Capt. C.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T
Speir, R. M.


Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.
Linstead, H. N.
Spent, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Donner, P. W.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Stevens, G. P.


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Drewe, C.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Storey, S.


Dunoan, Capt. J. A. L
Low, A. R. W.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (M[...]ray)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Summers, G. S.


Fell, A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Teeling, W.


Finlay, Graeme
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, S. J.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Tilney, John


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Fort, R.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Turner H. F. L.


Foster, John
Maclean, Fitzroy
Turton, R. H.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Vosper, D. F.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Wade, D. W.


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (PoIlok)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Markham, Major S. F.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Godber, J. B.
Marples, A. E.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maude, Angus
Watkinson, H. A.


Gower, H. R.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Wellwood, W.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mellor, Sir John
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mott-Radolvffe, C. E.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wills, G.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Nicholls, Harmer
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Wood, Hon. R.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)



Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Mr. Redmayne and


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nutting, Anthony
Mr. Richard Thompson


Hay, John
Odey, G. W.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Benson, G.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Albu, A. H.
Beswick, F.
Burton, Miss F. E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Blackburn, F.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)


Allen, Scholfield (Crewe)
Blenkinsop, A.
Callaghan, L. J.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Blyton, W. R.
Carmichael, J


Awbery, S. S.
Boardman, H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bowles, F. G.
Champion, A. J


Balfour, A.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Chapman, W. D.


Bartly, P.
Brockway, A. F.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Bence, C. R.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Clunie, J.


Benn, Wedgwood
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Collick, P. H







Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Cove, W. G
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rhodes, H.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Richards, R.


Grossman, R. H. S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Janner, B.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Daines, P.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Ross, William


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Short, E. W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Shurmer, P. L. E


Deer, G.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dodds, N. N.
Keenan, W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Donnelly, D. L.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
King, Dr. H. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kinley. J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Edelman, M.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacColl, J. E.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McGovern, J.
Steele, T.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McInnes, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, F.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Fienburgh, W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Finch, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Swingler, S. T


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Sylvester, G. O.


Follick, M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Foot, M. M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Forman, J. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Messer, F.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Gibson, C. W.
Mikardo, Ian
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Glanville, James
Mitchison, G. R.
Tomney, F.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Monslow, W.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Moody, A. S.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Morley, R.
Viant, S. P.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Weitzman, D.


Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Griffiths, Rt Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moyle, A.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Nally, W.
West, D. G.


Hale, Leslie
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (CoIna Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Orbach, M.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hannan, W.
Oswald, T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hardy, E. A.
Padley, W. E.
Wigg, George


Hargreaves, A.
Paling, Rt. Hen. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wilkins, W. A.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, David (Neath)


Hastings, S.
Pannell, Charles
Williams, Rev. Ltywelyn (Abertillery)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Paton, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Herbison, Miss M.
Pearson, A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hobson, C. R
Popplewell, E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Holman, P.
Porter, G.
Wyatt, W. L.


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Yates, V. F.


Houghton, Douglas
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Proctor, W. T.



Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reeves, J.
Mr. Bowden and




Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Holt: I beg to move, in page 10, line 46, at the end, to insert:
"and
(c) if, in the opinion of the licensing authority, the facilities to be provided are likely to be those preferred by those requiring transport facilities, the application shall be granted.
I feel that, in arguing the case for the Amendment, I should develop some general arguments against the A, B and C licensing system as it will be even under the Bill, but I shall endeavour to keep them pertinent to the Amendment, and I hope to remain within the rules of order.
The purpose of the Amendment is to give some positive instruction to the licensing authorities that they shall grant a licence in certain circumstances. At present there is no such positive instruction; they can take various matters into consideration and they can still refuse to grant a licence. If the Amendment were accepted, then:
if, in the opinion of the licensing authority, the facilities to be provided are likely to be those preferred by those requiring transport facilities, the application shall be granted.
Whatever other considerations may influence the licensing authority, if that condition is fulfilled, the licence shall be granted.
This will considerably alter the provisions by which licences are granted. Those provisions have already been considerably altered by the Amendments made by Clause 8 to the 1933 Act. As will be seen from a later Amendment, my party would like the discriminatory provisions of the licensing system altered, but not the provision about the fair wages Clause, safety regulations, hours of work and the filling in of forms. We want the first hurdle made equal for everybody, which is not the case under the present licensing system. There seems to be little chance of incorporating that in the Bill, but we believe that our Amendment would go a long way towards meeting the objections to the present system of people like ourselves.
Surely the purpose of the Amendments to the 1933 Act which the Government have inserted in Clause 8 is that there shall be a better transport system for the consumers of transport and that less regard shall be paid to general public considerations as various licensing authorities have chosen to interpret them, such as protection of the railways and so-called overcrowding of the roads. Those two matters, for instance, can no longer be considerations in the minds of the licensing authorities.
The railways are to be given freedom to compete, so that the licensing authorities, when deciding whether they can grant a licence or not, cannot possibly consider whether that new licence holder will in any way damage the turnover of the local railway system. From the point of view of vehicles overcrowding the roads, the 1933 Act has been a noticeable failure. I regret that that simple fact does not seem to be generally recognised on either side of the House. When the 1933 Act was passed there were something like two and a quarter million vehicles of all kinds on the roads. Now there are double that number, and if one group of vehicles is restricted, under the competitive system it will mean an expansion in another group.
The figure for A licensed vehicles for 1936—this is the earliest figure I could obtain from the Library—was 85,000, and in 1947 just before nationalisation the figure was very similar. Over those 10 or 11 years the licensing authorities

did, in fact, succeed in restricting A licences. If we examine the figures for B licences it will be seen that there is also a similar restriction. But the licensing authorities have no control over C licences or many other vehicles, like private cars, which have increased and clutter up the roads of the country. Thus, from the point of view of overcrowding the roads, the 1933 Act has been a complete and utter failure, and there can be no suggestion that it should be kept because of that consideration. There is no need either to keep it in existence to protect the railways, because the railways are going to be put on a commercial basis.
What is the reason for keeping it in existence? These words "the general public interest" are rather widely and loosely used, but very few people try to go into details. One instance that is given from time to time is that, if there were no licensing system, a man could bring a road vehicle into a country district and compete with a railway, so that the line would have to be closed because it would not pay, and that then the haulier might leave the district. I suggest that that kind of imaginative situation is quite fantastic and completely unreal, and if anyone ponders over it for a minute I think he will agree. I need not waste the time of the House going into it now.
Is the idea to work the licensing system in the interests of the present road hauliers? Is it the intention of the Conservative Party to protect the present possessors of A and B licences from full competition by young men who want to enter the haulage industry? Is there not to be any competition? I am afraid that when we examine such points we must come to the conclusion there is no idea of protection for anyone, and that in fact, if the licensing authorities are to carry out what appears to be the intention of the Government about licences, then all they have to provide is that subtle balance between supply and demand which would be achieved in a free market.
To ask licensing authorities all over the country to interpret arbitrarily whether a vehicle is needed by someone who wants to move some goods, and whether he should have it or should not have it—with the idea of trying to get a balance between supply and demand in


that area is demanding the impossible. It is in order to help the licensing authorities and make it simpler for them that we put down this Amendment. If they can see that the person who applies for a licence would meet a demand in that area, then that licence should be granted.

Mr. Donald Wade: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Braithwaite: It will be agreed on whatever benches we sit that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) and his friends have subjected the licensing system to the heaviest fire which it has experienced during the course of this Bill and, indeed, for many years past. The hon. Gentleman was refreshingly candid in what his objective was. A few minutes ago we were discussing the application of the licensing system, and I gathered from hon. Members opposite that the Government were accused of undue relaxation which was going to the contrary to the public interest. I would not agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, West that "the public interest" is something which is not understood. At any rate in this House it is something which we take into account when we legislate about anything at all, whatever Government may do it.

Mr. Holt: I am sorry if I gave that impression to the Parliamentary Secretary. I think this is the place where "the public interest" is understood, but it is quite wrong to allot some other authority outside the right to decide what is the public interest. That is a thing which should remain in this House.

Mr. Braithwaite: This House has over a period delegated machinery in these matters of licensing and one thing and another to outside bodies, and it has been done by both sides of the House and under Governments of many kinds. What the hon. Member has in mind is to make it mandatory upon the licensing authorities to grant licences of this kind in all cases where the services which the applicant seeks to provide are likely to be preferred for any reason at all by persons who require transport facilities. I would put it to the House that this would mean in a very large number of cases debarring the licensing authorities from exercising their discretion in granting or revising

licences, and from considering the question of the need for the service; and precluding consideration of the public interest even in cases where wasteful competition would arise if the licences were granted.
Some of us here tonight were present in 1933 when the Act of that year went through the House, and hon. Members who were here then will recall the very lengthy debates we had on this subject of the provision of transport facilities in what might otherwise be unprofitable areas and the overcrowding of transport facilities in areas which were profitable. I am not going to repeat those arguments now.
7.0 p.m.
In the event of the Amendment being accepted, the overriding criterion would become the existence of a demand, or even of a mere desire, by some prospective user for the proposed services. This proposal goes much further in the direction of relaxation than the Government contemplate. Indeed, I suggest in all good humour to the hon. Gentleman that to place this duty on the licensing authorities would be likely—I think he faced this issue clearly in his speech—to undermine the licensing system as it now exists and to lead to a return to the conditions which existed before the passing of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.

Mr. Wade: That was not a period of full employment.

Mr. John Hynd: No, but we have a Tory Government now.

Mr. Braithwaite: The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) knows as well as we do that there are such things as trade booms and recessions. We cannot legislate in 1953 on the assumption that everything will be ever more as it is today. Even Socialist Governments have been struck by recessions before now, notably between the years 1929 and 1931.
Whatever may be the view about the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, to accept the Amendment would put us back in the situation which existed before that Act was passed. I do not think that that statement is open to contradiction. I suggest, moreover, that the Amendment is misconceived. Subsection (3) of the Clause does not deal directly with the


granting or refusal of licences but with the factors which licensing authorities are to take into account when considering objections to applications for licences. The authority are bound to take into account objections made on the ground that existing facilities for transport suitable for trade and industry are already in excess of the need, or would be if the application were granted.
The exact effect of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is not clear, but owing to that wording it might be, and I have a suspicion that it is intended to be, that even if no objection on those grounds were to be proved, if on other evidence the licensing authority were satisfied that prospective customers of the applicant would approve of the services which it was proposed to provide, they would have to agree to the application. The question of charges, instead of being only one of many which the licensing authority has to take into account in deciding whether sufficient suitable facilities already exist, would necessarily become over a very wide field the deciding factor in these applications.
I think the Government have made it clear that they are in favour of some relaxation in the licensing system, but we do not intend and have never intended that this should go as far as to prevent the effective control of the general supply of road transport. In our view, the provisions of Clause 8 go as far in that direction as is necessary or desirable in order to allow a fuller and more convenient service to be provided. We think that the Clause tilts the balance in favour of the consumer as far as it ought to go. The Amendment would mean that any degree of preference by the consumer is to be conclusive, however small, and great disturbance would be caused to road transport and the persons providing it. It would deprive the licensing authorities, and on appeal from them the tribunal, of all powers to use ordinary common sense in these matters.
If the licensing authority and the tribunal cannot be trusted to exercise discretion left to them under the Bill, surely the logical conclusion must be that the licensing system must be swept away. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We do not hold that view. The opinions of

some of my hon. Friends might be even more strongly expressed on an Amendment later on the Paper, which I understand has not been selected for debate. I can only ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I rise to support the Amendment. I find it difficult to reconcile what the Parliamentary Secretary has said with the clarion cry, "Set the people free." The Amendment would do a great deal to undermine the present-day A and B licensing system. I must declare my interest in the matter, since I have on many occasions had something to do with the tribunals when applications for A and B licences have been heard. The bickering that takes place on those occasions is totally un-British. Many applications are made by people who want to enter the industry. We get the Railway Executive objecting automatically to all applications, whether or not the railway supplies an alternative service.

Mr. J. Hynd: The hon. Gentleman said that he had something to do with the tribunals hearing appeals. Can he tell the House what he has to do with them? Was he objecting to the applications?

Mr. Bowen: I have appeared on behalf of men wanting to enter the industry or wanting to increase the number of their lorries, and for other people who have objected. I do not think there is anything inconsistent in doing that.
The atmosphere there is something one does not get in a normal court. A man who works 10 lorries might be raising an objection to a man who wanted to enter the industry for a time or to a man with one lorry who wanted to get a bigger lorry. There is a whole lot of bickering and squabbling among neighbours as to whether one man should have a little more or less work than another. It is a really repulsive atmosphere for a healthy business community. Anything that can be done to undermine that state of affairs is good and is a development in a healthy direction.
The system is one which, when there are applications for A and B licences, is bound to work to the prejudice of the small man. Inevitably the holders of A and B licences tend to fall into the hands of groups and combines and it becomes almost impossible for a small man, if he


has a small business to develop, to enter the haulage industry. Looked at from the point of a healthy competitive industrial system, or from the most important view of the other users of transport, this state of affairs is anything but healthy.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the subject matter of the next two Amendments in page 11, lines 5 and 11, could be more conveniently raised on an Amendment which stands later on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) in Clause 29, page 38, line 8. The next Amendment I shall select is in Clause 10, page 12, line 12. I suggest to the House that the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) and that standing in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson), both in page 12, line 19, might be discussed together, as they all seem to cover the same subject matter.

Clause 10.—(THE TRANSPORT LEVY.)

Mr. D. Jones: I beg to move, in page 12, line 12, after "vehicles," to insert:
(not being vehicles of local authorities used for the purposes of the exercise and performance of their powers and duties).
This Amendment seeks to remove vehicles in the use of local authorities from the imposition of the Transport Levy. While I do not detract one iota from my objection to the levy as a principle because it is thoroughly bad, it is even worse that local authority vehicles should be subjected to this tax. After all, local authorities of whatever character are given a responsibility by Parliament and by statutes to carry out certain obligations. In order to do so, they have to employ road vehicles. Frequently the vehicles are of special construction and are used for specific purposes, but there are other statutory duties placed upon local authorities for which they use ordinary vehicles.
In no case do the local authorities undertake these services for profit. They are undertaking them on behalf of the ratepayers as a result of statutory obligations placed upon them by Parliament. I shudder to think what the condition of this country would be if a local authority in any part of it had not the necessary

vehicles for collecting refuse or salvage. Earlier this afternoon I heard an hon. Member ask a Question about the amount of paper collected for salvage purposes over a period. Local authorities undertaking that work do a useful job, and why those vehicles should be still further penalised by having to bear the additional levy, I fail to understand.
Again, many local education authorities, exercising their responsibilities under the Education Act, 1944, and preceding Acts, have established central kitchens from which they supply cooked meals to a number of schools in their area. I had the privilege on one occasion of being a member of a local authority which undertook the provision of school meals in that way, believing that they could do a more efficient and cheaper job by producing food in bulk at one centre and distributing it in specially constructed vans to various schools in the area. They are now to be penalised to the extent of 13s. 6d. per quarter of a ton per annum. I can well imagine that after this has been in operation the right hon. Lady the Minister of Education will have to come to the House and say that she proposes to add a further copper or two to the provision of school meals because this additional penal tax has made their production more expensive.
7.15 p.m.
Perhaps the most serious anomaly of all is that in connection with tower wagons which are used by local authorities for the purpose of attending in the main to lighting arrangements on the highways of this country. As I understand it, transport undertakings which have tower wagons for the purpose of maintaining the overhead lines for their trolley buses are not to pay this penal tax. If, however, a lighting authority which is not a transport authority purchases a tower wagon in order to improve the efficiency of attention to street lights, that wagon is to be subjected to this penal tax.
I cannot understand why it should be necessary for any vehicles used by a local authority to be subjected to this tax. It is a mistake, and the Minister would be well advised to exempt them. I anticipate that the right hon. Gentleman or his Parliamentary Secretary will tell us later on that he proposes to increase the present free limit from one ton to 30 cwt.


I see that his noble Friend and other of his hon. Friends have Amendments down to later Clauses. I do not know whether, by arrangement with the noble Lord, he will repeat tomorrow a gesture which he made this afternoon, of being impressed by his argument and of accepting his Amendment. I do know that in the Committee stage of this Bill the Minister said that he was impressed by the arguments advanced on the point of increasing the free limit from one ton to 30 cwt. and one would have expected that such an Amendment might have appeared on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman.
Even if the Minister tells us that, however, it will still place a fairly heavy burden on many local authorities. One local authority of which I know, in order to approve the amenities service to the rural parts of its area, has purchased a travelling library which goes round the various villages. It is over 30 cwt. unladen weight, so that even if the Minister decides to increase the free limit to that figure, they will still have to pay this tax. That is an added reason why all the vehicles of local authorities should be removed from its ambit.

Mr. G. Wilson: What is the distinction between a local authority vehicle which is carrying out what appears to be some commercial enterprise, and a private enterprise vehicle which is doing the same thing—for example, a private enterprise tower wagon, or something like that?

Mr, Jones: No local authority vehicle, as far as I know, carries out any service whatsoever for the private profit of a single individual within that local authority area. If, in fact, a local authority saves money by doing the job itself instead of putting profit into the hands of private haulage contractors, all the ratepayers within that local authority area benefit as a consequence.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I beg to second the Amendment.
It seems to me to be eminently fair that vehicles owned by local authorities, which cannot be said normally to compete in any way with private enterprise transport or with the Transport Commission, should be exempt from this levy. As the Bill stands, the levy will cost local

authorities a considerable sum. The London County Council, for instance, will have to find £2,100 a year in extra costs solely because of the levy which is to be imposed, assuming that it remains on the one-ton basis. If the hint that we had a little while ago means that the limit is to be raised to 30 cwt., my figures will, of course, be different.
A big authority like the London County Council can probably stand this expense, although there will be grumbles about it, but there are many local authorities in the country which simply could not afford the extra charge. On the ground that transport which is used by local authorities does not normally compete in any way with the transport which is owned by private enterprise—as it all will be, if the Bill succeeds—or by the Transport Commission, it ought to be excluded from the operation of the levy.
I should like to call the attention of the House to some rather absurd ways in which this levy would work. Many of the vehicles owned by local authorities are not by the wildest stretch of imagination used for purposes such as those for which private enterprise would use them. For instance, special vans are used for the carrying of weight-testing machines for coal inspection officers, who go around the streets making sure that people get the correct weight of coal in the bags.

Mr. D. Jones: We cannot trust private enterprise.

Mr. Gibson: As my hon. Friend says, that is because nobody completely trusts private enterprise. Those vehicles are for the benefit of the people generally and to ensure that they get what they pay for. They in no way compete for the normal trading services of the country, but they will have to bear the levy.
The lorries used in the heavy rescue service, which is being slowly built up all over the country, which are used for carrying equipment for training purposes, will also have to bear the levy if the Bill is not altered. Even from the point of view of those who think that this is a good Bill, it seems to me utterly ridiculous that such vans should be expected to bear a levy in order to cover a loss which could have been avoided had the problem been dealt with by the Government in some other way.
Then there are lorries which are fitted as workshops and which carry the apparatus, machinery and men for keeping clean London's sewers. That is an important job, and one which must be done. These vehicles are in no way competitive with the normal trading facilities for which lorries are used, yet they, too, must bear the levy; and if they carry an extra large amount of equipment, as is sometimes necessary, on a trailer, there will be an additional charge upon them.
I could enumerate a whole list of vehicles which large authorities, at any rate, must use in the ordinary course of their business, to show how ridiculous it is, on the basis of the principles which are said to underlie the Bill, to charge local authorities with this levy in order to cover a loss which ought never to have been allowed to grow.
I suggest, therefore, that on grounds of common sense and in fairness to local authorities, and because in these days of financial difficulties for all local authorities—difficulties which have been increased in severity by the raising of the interest rate by the Government—we ought not to impose upon them the further charge which they must bear if the Clause is passed in its present form. I hope that the Minister will be a little more forthcoming and understanding of the problems and difficulties of local authorities, as he was when the matter was previously discussed.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: It is always interesting when matters of local government interest are discussed in the House because they always cut across party lines, if the byplay that went on between the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is anything to go by. I should have hoped, however, that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools would have avoided the cheap party sneer with which he intervened and tended to spoil his case. This is a very important matter, which affects local authorities of all political shades, and we are here seeking to do something which is quite outside party politics.

Mr. D. Jones: The justification for that is that there are political friends of the Minister who are objecting to paying the levy, and he is not responding. In those circumstances, it is fair that we

should point out that a Conservative Minister is compelling Conservative-controlled local authorities to increase their rates.

Squadron Leader Cooper: It is fair to point out that the Minister is also asking Socialist-controlled authorities to do the same thing, which, I suppose, is modern political fair shares.
I want to approach the problem from a rather different point of view, and that is on what, I hope, is the score of logic. On an earlier stage of the Bill, my right hon. Friend stated that the purposes of the levy were (i) for the payment for loss of goodwill that the sale of the road haulage fleet of the British Transport Commission might occasion; (ii) compensation to those displaced; and (iii) a fixed sum to the British Transport Commission for disturbance. I submit that none of these purposes relates to the vehicles of the local authorities.
I was always under the impression that the purpose of the levy was a small payment which the purchasers of these vehicles were to pay as compensation to the Transport Commission for loss sustained; in other words, people who would derive direct benefit from the operation of the Bill would have to pay the levy. As events have turned out, however, that is not to be so. People who receive no benefit whatever from the operations of this Bill are still forced to pay the levy. To me that has never seemed just; and it is for that reason, that I spoke on this point during the Committee stage and am again raising my voice tonight.
7.30 p.m.
It should be pointed out to the House that the types of local authority vehicles affected are, refuse collection vehicles, salvage collection vehicles, vehicles used for the removal of bedding, tower vehicles used by street lighting authorities and vehicles used by education authorities for the carriage of school meals. It will be seen that not one of these vehicles can be construed as being used "for business," which is one of the terms used by the Minister on a previous occasion. We have therefore been careful in drawing up the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) to line 19.

Mr. G. Wilson: How does my hon. Friend distinguish a vehicle used for school meals from one carrying produce for a grocer, or something like that?

Squadron Leader Cooper: I do not think it really necessary to answer that question. We have been careful in drafting our Amendment to include only those vehicles which are used quite strictly for local authority non-business purposes, and we hope that that will encourage the Minister to help us.
I want to draw the attention of the Minister to what is a very serious anachronism in this procedure. By what process of reasoning can one exempt a tower wagon belonging to an electric transport undertaking and at the same time compel payment of the levy for a tower wagon controlled by a lighting authority? It just does not make sense and is very similar to many of the Purchase Tax changes for which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was responsible in the last Government. It seems to me that it does not matter what party is in power the bureaucratic mind can always create some inconsistency which befogs and befuddles everyone. I hope that the Minister will tell us that this type of thing will be avoided in this Bill.
We must also look at the question of refuse vehicles, certain types of which are exempt while for others the levy will have to be paid. Where is the reasoning to support that point of view? The drafting of the Amendment to which I have put my name may not be entirely in accordance with the wishes of the Minister, but there are so many inconsistencies in the payment of this levy by local authorities that I hope my right hon. Friend will make some concessions to us on this matter.

Mr. H. Hynd: Somewhat to my surprise I find myself in support of the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper), and I hope that he will return the compliment by being in the same Lobby with me in a few minutes time. The Amendment to which the hon. and gallant Member directed his remarks is supported by the Association of Municipal Corporations, a body representing local authorities of all shades of opinion. That is

an important fact to which the House must give special consideration.
As has already been pointed out, it is quite illogical that certain vehicles should be exempt and others not exempt. From the benches opposite the question has been asked, why should there be a distinction between local authority vehicles and vehicles owned by private contractors? There is a very obvious distinction. The most obvious point is that this is nothing more nor less than an additional tax on local authorities. This year local authorities are very worried about the possibility of having to increase their rates still further in the next few months. Most of them are almost making up their minds to the inevitability of that course. On top of their other difficulties, the Minister is imposing this special tax, for no reason which can be defended in this House. As most of the arguments in support of the Amendment have been used by hon. Members who have spoken already, and as I am anxious to hear what—if any—defence the Minister can make to the anomalies at present in the Bill, I content myself with what I have said in support of the Amendment.

Sir Ian Fraser: I do not like the levy anyway. but, if there is to be a levy, it seems to me that there is a principle upon which we can base it. That is the principle of providing for compensation, the principle of making up for the extreme difficulties in which the Government find themselves in selling so much so quickly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Let me make quite clear that I support the main principle of the Bill. I therefore think it right, or at any rate admissible, that provision should occur in the Bill to make it possible to carry out the main principle on equitable lines.
But I see no reason why local authorities should by themselves be exempted on any principle whatever. A clear line could be drawn between those who are to benefit and those who are not to benefit. That would mean exempting all the local authorities as well as those who own their own transport. But I cannot see a reason to exempt one and not the other. I hope that in due course we shall have a satisfactory statement from the Minister. For the moment I reserve judgment on the matter, and I would certainly not vote for exemption of the


local authorities to the exclusion of private persons who operate lorries. That is notwithstanding my main desire to support the Association of Municipal Corporations whenever I can, and also my own local authority.

Mr. Mellish: Could the hon. Member tell us the views of his own local authority?

Sir I. Fraser: I do not suppose that anyone likes paying, unless they have to do so.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: I hope that I shall be able to move the Amendment to line 19 which stands in my name?

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected that Amendment, but it is similar in sense and purpose to the Amendment which has been moved and I was calling the hon. Lady to discuss the matter.

Mrs. Corbet: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My Amendment is completely in sympathy with that moved by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), but with the advantage, I think, that it does more clearly define the local authorities which would be exempt from the levy if the Minister finds it in his heart to grant this concession. It would appear that as the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend stands the local authority would be subject to the definition contained in the Transport Act, 1947, and would therefore be
… the council of a county, the Common Council of the City of London, or the council of a county borough;
The definition I suggest is a wider one and would include, for instance, Metropolitan borough councils and county district councils, which otherwise would not be covered.
On the general question, I hope that the Minister will be a little tenderhearted. He knows that on both sides of the House a great many people think that it is not just to include the local authorities. While I appreciate the difficulties of differentiating between one type of user and another, I should think that the definition given recently by one of my hon. Friends, namely, that the local authorities provide service to the people in their area and their aim is not to make a profit, provides the Minister with a

line which marks the difference between them and other users.
The Minister need not fear that the local authorities will seek to swindle—I use that word for lack of a better one—in any way. They will register their vehicles as local authority vehicles, and no other vehicles will be so registered by them. While the Minister is considering this matter, I would point out, if he has it in his mind to agree to the raising of the weight of the vehicles, as is so strongly urged by so many of his hon. Friends, that it would not really meet the local authorities' point to any great extent. My own authority calculates that its 390 vehicles now affected would be reduced only to 312. So I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind and consider whether it is worth while placing any limit at all on local authority vehicles.
If the right hon. Gentleman intends to look kindly on the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) has outlined, I suggest that he would be wiser to include the whole of the local authorities' vehicles rather than make any distinction between those listed in that Amendment and the few others that might be left outside the definition. If the Minister really wants to make sure that the local authority does not gain any benefit by including some vehicles that may be working for profit in a trading service, he could require the local authority to register the vehicles as such, and require the payment of levy on those vehicles. I do not think that that would hit local authorities very hard, and I suggest it would be a way out. With all my heat, I ask the Minister to consider favourably this plea of the local authorities.

Mr. Philip Bell: I am bound to say that a strong case can be made for excluding all local authority vehicles from this levy. It is for that reason that I put my name to the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson). I ought to make it quite clear that I do not think this to be an exception to a good rule: I think it is a shocking rule. We can see whether it is a good rule or not by trying to find the principle of any


exception. One of my hon. and learned Friends could not see why any transport should be excepted from this levy.
In discussing this kind of subject on Report stage, we have, for the purposes of the discussion, to make certain assumptions which we do not really mean. We have to assume that the sale of transport will involve a loss, though we are not quite sure what that loss will be. We have also to assume for the purposes of this discussion that it is worth incurring the loss. We do not know whether the figure will be £30 million or £40 million, but we say that this is an occasion for cutting the loss. We may be wrong, but for the purposes of this discussion we say that if we continue with nationalisation the bill will pile up, and that it is better to cut our losses and face a loss now. Those are the assumptions on which—

7.45 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: Road transport is making a profit.

Mr. Bell: The profit is not quite so clear as many people think. We have in this Bill to provide for this loss—

Mr. Hynd: What loss?

Mr. Bell: —on the sale of the assets. The ordinary way of doing that is to provide that the general taxpayer shall bear it. That is what the last Administration did in one or two unpleasant instances—nuts and eggs. We did not go to the grocer and say, "We think that you ought to contribute to this loss." In the case of Purchase Tax, we have a Committee trying to see how to avoid a loss falling on retailers when there is an alteration of tax. In the case of the de-nationalisation of the steel industry, there is no attempt being made to put the burden on particular users.
The presumption always is that when a mistake is made the taxpayer pays. That is the ordinary rule. Now we have a rather extraordinary position here because this is the first time, probably not the last, that we are having to de-nationalise transport or anything else.

Mr. Popplewell: The hon. and learned Member is making much of the losses of nationalised transport. Will he give one instance in which the taxpayer has yet had to put up a penny in consequence of the nationalisation of transport? Will

he also say how often it was, when transport was in the hands of private enterprise, the taxpayer had to give some hefty subsidies, such as £70 million in two years, to private enterprise?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The hon. and learned Member must not pursue that point on this Amendment.

Mr. Bell: I think we are at cross-purposes. I am dealing with the loss on the re-sale of the vehicles, which we have to cover. We can perhaps refer to the other matter on another occasion.
I am suggesting that the ordinary rule would be that the loss would be met by the taxpayer. The situation we are now considering is exceptional because we have never had experience of de-nationalising, of having to decide how a consequent loss has to be met. Therefore, what is being done is an experiment. There is to be a loss which could be put on the taxpayer, or we could invent some class of the community.—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not quite follow how this argument arises on the Amendment.

Mr. Bell: The point with which I am dealing is, what is the principle by which some people are selected to pay this levy?

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Is the loss not due to de-nationalisation, and nothing else?

Mr. Bell: That is another point. If the hon. and learned Member will he good enough to listen and get his irritation off his chest, I will ask him to assume, for the purposes of discussion, that there is in fact to be a loss and that we are now deciding how it is to be borne.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Is the hon. and learned Member assuming a loss for the sake of argument, or is he at a loss for an argument?

Mr. Bell: In view of what you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have said, I had better not pursue that interruption.
How are the people who are to pay the levy to be selected? I understood the Home Secretary to say that it should be borne by the users of transport, but that does not mean anything because everybody uses transport directly or indirectly: one drives a wagon, or has goods carried


in the wagon or consumes the goods which are carried in the wagon. The other suggestion which my right hon. Friend has put forward is that certain persons who have transport will reap a benefit out of this Measure. What and how?
It is suggested that A and B licence holders are now to get an opportunity of making more money by the removal of their radius restriction. Every time the law is aItered someone gets some benefit out of it. We do not tax part of the community. I fail to find it a convincing argument that we should suddenly say that these people have the opportunity of making more profit and therefore they must be taxed, and it applies to the C licence. When we depart from the strict rule that the community must bear the loss we have arguments about exemptions—whether sewage wagons or some other vehicle should come in—and everybody says they are not profit making. But is not that nonsense, because the community gets a little benefit if it carries its own goods and therefore saves expense, and someone gets a benefit somewhere? If we try to argue that certain vehicle owners should pay the tax, I believe we shall get into a great jungle of confusion; which is shown by the very Amendments themselves.
I am doubtful whether the whole levy system is not the real secret of the difficulty. There was only one reason ever given why the levy system should come in at all, and it was a particularly unconvincing one. It was suggested that it would draw the teeth of hon. Members opposite if we said it was not in fact to be put on the taxpayers. I am not convinced of the power of those teeth. I think that power has been greatly exaggerated. I only approve of this with regard to municipal vehicles because I feel it shows the failure of the whole idea of the Transport Levy. That is my view.
But it is nonsense to think that we should get any understanding or sympathy from hon. Gentlemen opposite because we did not put the levy on the taxpayer. There would be just the same venomous speeches from hon. Members opposite. They would use the word like "chaotic," and so on, whatever we put in the Bill. It is not a crime, it is a blunder to start putting the loss on any other person than the taxpayers.

The sooner the taxpayers learn that nationalisation costs money and that there is a need for de-nationalisation the better.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I want mildly to join the merry band of variegated optimists who hope that the Minister will have another look at this matter. But, much as I hate to disappoint the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), if the Minister does not like my optimism I shall not go into the Lobbies against him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Coward."] I do not mind accusations of cowardice across the Floor of the House, I know my position will be well understood.
I suggest that lurking beneath this there is another matter of principle. I will not discuss the merits of the levy, because I suspect that were I to do so it might be noticed that I was out of order. I would suggest for the consideration of the Minister that, to adopt a phrase of the Economic Secretary in the Committee stage, the idea that the position of local authorities is in any way commensurate with that of the hauliers is a rabbit which, in the field of logic, will not run at all.
For the most part, the real position of these local authorities in this matter is that they have statutory duties imposed upon them. Whereas the haulier can decide, aye or no, "Shall I be a haulier or not," and can therefore decide whether he wishes to receive the benefits offered by this Bill, the local authorities have not that choice; because for the most part they have to discharge duties imposed upon them by statute. I think that there is a point of principle worthy of consideration.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Viscount Hinchingbrooke.

Mr. Callaghan: Three in a row?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is quite capable of rising to his feet, in which case it is likely he would have been called.

Mr. Callaghan: The noble Lord has referred to me. Let me remind him that there are a great many other Amendments on the Order Paper, including one on the whole principle of the levy. We thought that the House would like the opportunity


to discuss them. It is my view—and I will now resume my seat—that, as we have had an almost unanimity of view in this matter, we might have heard from the Minister before now.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Gentleman is quite well aware of the geniality of the debate by this time, and no doubt had he risen and made a short speech my right hon. Friend would have replied. But as I was the only Member to rise, the Chair had no choice but to call me.
I am not quite in view with the desires of most hon. Members to get a point made today for the local authorities. It may be because I have not had the association with local authorities which other hon. Members have. No doubt when from time to time local authorities feel strongly on a particular point they canvass those hon. Members and we get representations of a view which is ad hoc, and not weighted fully against long-term considerations.
I have listened to the debate with great care, and there is no doubt that the balance of argument is in favour of some concession to these local authorities. But it seems to me that the tests of why that should be done are many and varied and, taken singly, do not hold water at all. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) said he could not see that local authorities got anything out of this de-nationalisation process and therefore were not called on to pay the levy. But local authorities are great trading communities. They do not make a profit—I will refer to the profit motive in a moment—but they are great trading communities.
If, as a result of de-nationalisation of transport, there is a more rapid conveyance of goods; if, as a result of alterations in the transport service of the country, houses go up faster than before and hospitals are built—[HON. MEMBERS: "And schools?"] and the other services and interests for which local authorities are responsible thrive and prosper, I think local authorities should be called upon to bear their fair share.
As for the profit test, this is not a tax on profitability. Surely by implication, if we leave out local authori-

ties, which do not earn a profit, we are saying that it is, and therefore to that extent the remainder are taxed on profitability. There is a political motive, and the reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite are so excited about it is that they like to see profitable private enterprise stand the levy, and, by the implication of this Amendment, a higher proportion of the levy than before. They do not like to see non-profit making organisations exempted from the levy, but in that they are not consistent, either. They do not come forward with the suggestion that charitable trusts, and other non-profit making organisations who have vehicles, should be exempted from the levy. We might quote Government Departments—

Mr. Popplewell: We say the levy is wrong altogether.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: —which are non-profit making organisations.
I reject on grounds of principle, and because of the full and detailed explanation that we have had in the successive speeches on this Bill about the purpose of this levy—and the decision of the House upon it, not once, not twice, but three times—this idea that we should make an invasion of the principle at this stage. I hope my right hon. Friend will reject the series of Amendments designed to do this with regard to local authorities.
8.0 p.m.
In the Amendment in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) there are four categories of vehicles which he and his hon. Friends think should be exempt from the levy. We see at once the falsity of this proposal when we consider three of those categories. It is only in respect of one that there is a sound argument. The first category is:
vehicles used by local authorities for the collection of refuse or the collection of salvage.
A very large number of people collect refuse and salvage and serve the interests of a community under private enterprise. Are they not to be exempt if local authorities are to be exempt? The second category is:
vehicles used by education authorities for the carriage of school meals.


One of my hon. Friends made a case for the carriage of goods to a grocer's shop. That is one step remote from school meals, but it comes very near to it. Not all school meals are served in schools run by local authorities. The third category is:
vehicles used by local authorities for removal of bedding.
I do not understand that. It seems to me that a large array of private enterprise transport interests convey goods of that kind. The only category where there seems to he a case is the last one. Whether we can legislate upon it without ensuing anomalies under the Vehicles (Excise) Act I do not know. The old Latin tag de minimis non curat lex comes to mind, but there seems to be a case for:
tower wagons used by highway authorities and street lighting authorities.
If my right hon. Friend says that it is possible to legislate upon the last provision, I think that we should all go with him on that; but, for the rest, I hope that he will reject many of the arguments.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have had a most interesting discussion. I recognise that the majority view is not in favour of the present proposals of the Government but, for the reasons advanced by my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) that perhaps is not altogether surprising in the circumstances. To single out one speech, I should like to say how much I personally enjoyed the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell). He seemed to go to the root of the problem. This is not a bad exception to a good rule, but it is a bad rule itself.
I am not in a position to develop the argument whether losses consequent on de-nationalisation should be borne by the taxpayer or spread over the users of transport, because it has been ruled that that would be out of order. But my hon. and learned Friend was right in saying that there is a rule in this matter. Some hon. Members may think that it is a good rule; some may think that it is a bad one. The rule is that, for reasons which presumably are good—for every Government have continued it—Parliament decided that certain vehicles should pay Excise Duty at special rates. This applied to some local authority vehicles but not to the majority of them.
We have proceeded from the start in drawing up this Bill on the assumption that where a specially reduced rate of tax has been conceded for excise purposes, by putting the vehicles into an easily identifiable category, they should be exempt from the levy; but where Parliament has decided that certain vehicles should pay the full Excise Duty then they should also pay the levy, whether they belong to a local authority or not. I agree that there is a rule running through this. Members of Parliament may have their own views about that rule. There are times and opportunities under the Finance Bill when the rule on which this procedure is based can fairly come up for examination.

Mr. H. Hynd: Does that mean that if exemptions are carried through during the financial discussions or otherwise, bringing further vehicles within that rule, they will become exempt from the levy?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course it does. We have based ourselves on this clear-cut definition that vehicles that pay the excise shall pay the levy. It also means that if a vehicle, having paid both the excise and the levy, is laid up for a period and recovery of the excise is possible, then recovery of the levy for the same period is also possible.
We have many interesting speeches and a number of Amendments have been discussed, all designed to achieve the same objective but taking differing forms. I was specially interested in the Amendment in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson). We are all sorry to hear of the family bereavement which has caused his absence today. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) made a very strong case.
There is differing emphasis in these various proposals. If I say that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) is the worst of all, I hope she will not think me ungallant. She made an extremely agreeable speech which was well argued. I should hate to say any-thing that might appear to be discourteous to her. She included in her Amendment a definition of the words "local authority" from the Town and


Country Planning Act, 1947. The definition in that Act is very wide, as she said, but the Act itself does not apply to Scotland.
If I accepted her Amendment local authorities in England would be exempt from the levy but town councils and small burghs in Scotland would have to pay. I shudder to think of the trouble I should have from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilford, South did not make that mistake. Had his colleague the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North been here, I would have told him that I should have liked to accept his new Clause during our proceedings a few days ago, had it been called. That new Clause referred to a wider right to local authorities to appeal to the Transport Tribunal. I will deal with that question on Third Reading. It is out of order to develop the matter further now. There will be an Amendment in another place and I will deal with the point on Third Reading.
The effect of all these proposals is to exempt all, or some, local authority vehicles from the levy. No doubt this flood of communications from local authorities to all Members would have taken place in any case, but I believe that I might have a little personal responsibility for it, apart from prime responsibility for the Bill. On an earlier occasion, on 11th December at column 509 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, I appeared to link my view that we could well raise the total exemption to 30 cwt. from one ton with some relief for local authorities. I may inadvertently have given the impression that I thought that by raising the limit to 30 cwt. all the local authority difficulties would be swept away.
Incidentally, I received two telegrams a day or two after that in my different capacities. One was addressed to the Minister of Civil Aviation from a town clerk. It thanked me warmly for an action I had taken in connection with a local aerodrome. The other was addressed to the Minister of Transport—perhaps he did know it was the same person—expressing unqualified indignation "at this unmerited attack on local authorities."
The speeches we have heard tonight, from the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) and many others, were inclined to be a little out of perspective. After all, this is only a temporary charge. All the arguments about principle went when the second part of the levy was abandoned among, I think, universal good wishes from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and not least from those who had been hoping to make some political capital out of it. It certainly cannot possibly be called penal.
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools knows that much of the work in connection with school meals is done under contract. If this Amendment was carried the charge would still be on the conveyance of school meals. The hon. Gentleman whipped himself up into a modern version of the Areopagitica on the fact that travelling libraries would be affected. That is carrying the matter a little bit too far.
The Amendment in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North is an attempt to meet the real difficulty of the Government in regard to these local activities which, in the words of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, are deemed to be:
the carrying on of a business" for the purposes of the Act.
My hon. Friend did try to meet our difficulty. He linked this solely with certain types of local authority vehicles, but there are great difficulties in this matter, one of which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) in an interruption.
Vehicles are used for different purposes by many similar local authorities. Many of these specified purposes which would be exempted have not got special vehicles to discharge them. Indeed, hon. Members will realise that if a local authority, having got exemption for a vehicle on the ground that they were using it for one purpose, then wanted to use it for another, they would be committing an offence under the Act passed by the late Administration—the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, if they did any such thing. Therefore, for reasons which I think are overwhelming, I could not accept that Amendment as it stands.
Further, I see no moral reason why local authorities should be exempted. They pay Excise Duty, they pay Purchase Tax on vehicles used for the very purposes that we are now discussing. The real answer is to get the level of all taxation down, and we are very anxious to do that, but there is no moral justification for exempting the local authorities. Government Departments are going to pay this levy, and there is no reason why local authorities should be exempt and Government Departments should pay. There is the further reason that a great deal of the work of local authorities—indeed, some of their most important social and hygienic activities—are carried on under contract by other people, and it would be very unfair if, in deciding whether to continue the contract or not, the balance was tilted in favour of direct work by the council if, in fact, their vehicles would be exempt and those doing the work otherwise would have to pay the levy.
Then, there is the very strong argument, which I must repeat to the House, concerning the need to have a simple method of machinery, and a cheap and effective one. We base the levy squarely on the Vehicles (Excise) Act, and it will apply precisely to the same vehicles that are liable for the normal excise duty. The Excise Act sets out vehicles which are not subject to the Excise Duty, and they will not pay the levy. There are 11 categories of vehicles which are subject to reduced or exceptional Excise Duty, and they will not pay the levy either, but we are anxious that, where vehicles do pay the Excise Duty and pay the levy, we should not depart from the existing machinery which all local authorities know very well.
Apart from this, I think it will he some considerable comfort to the local authorities to realise the following items. In addition to those vehicles which pay no levy because they pay no Excise Duty, or which pay no levy because they pay the exceptional rate, a large number of local authority vehicles, being below the minimum category, will escape altogether, the minimum category being designed to exclude virtually all the small delivery vehicles. In addition, by the exemptions which I have already mentioned, a whole range of other activities are completely exempted, such as fire engines, and ambulances and road rollers. There is

also a whole list of vehicles which do not pay the ordinary Excise Duty and do not pay the levy in the second category, such as cleansing vehicles, vehicles for watering the roads or vehicles paying a special rate which do not pay the levy.
I come finally to the one difficulty that is really the absurdity of the situation, and that is the question of tower wagons. For some extraordinary reason, into the wisdom of which I have not been able successfully to enter, tower wagons used by highway authorities have to pay Excise Duty. This has gone right through the Excise Act of the late Administration and through the whole series of the Finance Acts of both the late Administration and previous ones. It is a fact, and we have to accept the fact as it is. The tower wagons used by electricity, gas or electric transport undertakings come within the definition of tower wagons in the Act of 1949. They are in a separate category for the Duty and are wholly exempt from the levy.
It is not for me to ponder the wisdom of this old Act of 1949, nor can I really claim that, had I been a Member of that Government, I would have noticed this point, but it shows how the evil that we do may live on even under a better Administration which has succeeded to office. I wish I could have met these points raised with genuine sincerity, but I am afraid that, for all these reasons, I must decline to accept all these Amendments.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I would not wish to take up the time of the House at this stage, but I think the Minister might have given us an indication whether he intends to include in the Finance Bill any exemption of vehicles, as indeed he will be able to do, if he is so minded. This particular anomaly of the 1949 Act can be easily remedied by the insertion of a small Clause in the next Finance Bill. Has the Minister the intention of doing that? I will give way if he will tell us.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It was only recently that I discovered this incongruity, and although naturally I shall give it full consideration in consultation with my colleagues, I am unable to indicate what line the Finance Bill will take.

Mr. Callaghan: That is not in accordance with the usual practice. Although


nobody ever gives any indication of what may appear in the Budget, it is quite frequent for a Minister to give an indication of what will appear in the Finance Bill, which does not necessarily affect the Budget.
I do not know whether the local authorities will be satisfied by what the Minister has said, but I have very grave doubts. Certainly the ratepayers of those cities whose rates under this Administration seem to he going up year by year, and who will find that they will have to pay yet another small additional rate because the Government insist upon throwing away the British Road Services enterprise at a loss, will know that they can charge the responsibility for that to the Minister.
In normal times, when not working to a Guillotine which falls at 8.30 p.m., I should have been inclined to ask my hon. Friends to test the feelings of the House, but I suggest to them that they may be content to allow the Government to negative our Amendment, and in these circumstances we might spend the last 12 minutes in a discussion on the general principle of the levy, since a number of these anomalies arise out of the principle of the levy, and ask the Government what they intend to do about it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Pannell: I beg to move, in page 12, line 15, to leave out "fifty-four," and insert "fifty-five."
I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) is going out, because I wanted to deal with something that he had to say. It seems to me that in the discussion on a previous Amendment the hon. Gentleman set forth to make a case in suggesting that, somehow or other, local authorities stood in a different relationship from other users of vehicles. He deployed a completely different case on 11th December, when he tried to make the case that I am trying to make now—that the whole levy is evil, and that, as far as C licences are concerned, they had better be left outside the levy. The hon. Gentleman has suffered a lapse of memory because, partly through the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), he was again deploying the point that he himself made

on a previous occasion. However, we do not expect very good memories on the other side of the House, so I will pass on.
When we discussed the levy on a previous stage of the Bill, it had a very dusty reception from the other side. It was the fact that the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) made a case against it and said that it was iniquitous that further taxation should fall on food distributing vehicles. Of course, in addition to that, it so happens that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that it not only referred to food vehicles, and mentioned the question of the weight being raised by 10 cwt. He seems to me to have fallen into the error of thinking that all local authority problems are solved if we increase the weight to 30 cwt.

Mr. Powell: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member moving the Amendment to leave out "fifty-four" and to insert "fifty-five"?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is what I called him to move.

Mr. Pannell: And I was addressing myself to that. I now say that the whole thing ought to be put on one side, and I am drawing attention to the irrelevancies of hon. Gentlemen opposite on previous stages of the Bill.
No one likes the levy. Indeed, what the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) said about it seemed to appeal to the Minister. I can only think that the levy has been left in, not because the Minister likes it, but because of the obduracy of the civil servants who proposed it in the first place. The Minister has not developed a decent argument in favour of it. Normally when politicians bring things forward they can at least provide some original thought regarding them. When all has been said and done, this levy has been altered so many times—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must limit his arguments to the benches opposite.

Mr. Pannell: I have made it clear that every time the Minister has come before the House on the subject he has altered the basis of the levy. First, it was for certain matters; then there was a revision, and on the last occasion the right


hon. Gentleman told us that the levy would rank for Excess Profits Tax. Income Tax, and other taxes. I was just wondering where we had got to.
There is one thing about which the right hon. Gentleman has not told us, and that is where he stands on the promise he made that on the Report stage he was going to look sympathetically at the proposal to increase the tonnage from one ton to 30 cwt. I do not know whether he is going to deal with it here, in another place, or where, but it was on that sop that he seemed to satisfy his dissentient back benchers. We have heard nothing about that up to now.
I mentioned on a previous occasion that I object to all forms of discriminatory taxation that bedevil industrial design. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) smiles; I should have thought that as an engineer he would have understood that.

Mr. Anthony Fell: rose—

Mr. Pannell: I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman at this stage. As a matter of fact, he has only recently come into the Chamber.

Mr. Fell: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the hon. Gentleman opposite to say that I have only just come into the Chamber when, in fact, I have been here a very considerable time?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Pannell: As I was saying, I made the point on a previous occasion that I object to discriminatory taxation which bedevils industrial design.

Mr. Fell: rose—

Mr. Pannell: I am not asking the hon. Gentleman, I am telling him.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the hon. Member will direct his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Pannell: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am adducing arguments as to why this levy should be put off. I should have thought it was quite appropriate to put forward arguments showing that this is a discriminatory tax. Once an arbitrary tax based on weight

is imposed, there is a tendency towards overloading below that weight. In the same way, an arbitrary 20-mile an hour speed limit leads to overloading below that weight, and I should have thought that an engineer would have understood that. There is no doubt that it has happened before.
Something like £340 million is raised by taxation of the vehicles that ply upon our roads, 85 per cent. of which is paid by commercial transport. That amounts to five times more than the money spent from the Road Fund for the benefit of these vehicles. I think that road transport has been penalised in the past. I know that some of my hon. Friends with railway interests will object to that, but my mind does not move on a permanent way. I hope we shall throw out this levy.

Mr. Thomas Steele: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Braithwaite: The House may not entirely have gathered from the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) that the effect of this Amendment would be to postpone the payment of the levy for one year. I think the hon. Gentleman, very reasonably, seized the opportunity for a rather more general dissertation, including some remarks about the Civil Service. So far as my right hon. Friend and I are concerned, we hope that the staffs which we now have at the Ministry of Transport will be there in 1954, and, indeed, in 1955.
The hon. Gentleman did not advance an argument which I should have thought might have been relevant to the rather narrow point of the Amendment itself. He might well have said that the collection of the levy should not begin until the removal of the 25-mile radius at the end of next year as provided in Clause 7. We do not take that view. It is the opinion of the Government that the collection of the levy should begin
as quickly as is reasonably practicable,
if I may return to some words which we were discussing earlier today. After all, the sooner the levy commences, the sooner it will end. In our view, the matter should go ahead without delay. On the narrow point of the Amendment itself, I must ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Callaghan: I am extremely sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has not used his time in order to deploy the arguments, if indeed there are any, in favour of the levy as the levy, because, as he clearly understood, the purpose of this Amendment was to get a general discussion on the nature of the levy. I can only assume that the reason he has not deployed those arguments is that they do not exist or that he does not believe in them.

Mr. Braithwaite: The hon. Gentleman had them in the Committee stage.

Mr. Callaghan: We may have had them in the Committee stage, but the purpose of a Report stage is that the play of public opinion shall affect the mind of the Minister. It has certainly affected him in some directions, and we had hoped that there might be some effect upon his mind in the matter of the levy, because from my correspondence—and, I gather, from that of hon. Members opposite—there has been no diminution of the volume of criticism directed against the levy. Contrariwise, it has increased, and I should have thought that if the Minister had been impressed by the

criticism which he has partially met in some other matters, then he most certainly ought to have been impressed by the criticism that has been directed against the levy.

I must say that in his amusing speech, the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) was absolutely right in following the doctrine laid down in the Committee stage by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), that losses which are incurred by the direct action of the Government should be borne by the taxpayer. It seems to me that the Government have no right to shuffle off the losses that the public will incur through the selling of British Road Services at a loss which may range between £30 million and £50 million—

It being Half-past Eight o'Clock,Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERproceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That fifty-four ' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 221.

Division No. 79.]
AYES
[8.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Cary, Sir Robert
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Channon, H.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Alport, C. J. M.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Godher, J. B.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A


Arbuthnot, John
Cole, Norman
Gower, H. R.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Colegate, W. A.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Asshetcn, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Baker, P. A. D
Craddock, Berestord (Spelthorne)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr, J. M.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Banks, Col. C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Barber, Anthony
Crouch, R. F.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Barlow, Sir John
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Cuthbert, W. N.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Hay, John


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Deedes, W. F.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Heath, Edward


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Birch, Nigel
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bishop, F. P.
Donner, P. W.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bossom, A. C.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Drayson, G. B
Hirst, Geoffrey


Boyle, Sir Edward
Drewe, C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Braine, B. R.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hollis, M. C.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Duthie, W. S.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon W. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fell, A.
Horobin, I. M.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Finlay, Graeme
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fisher, Nigel
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Bullard, D. G.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fort, R.
Hurd, A. R.


Bullus, Wine Commander E. E.
Foster, John
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Campbell, Sir David
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Carr, Robert
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H


Carom, Hon. E.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)




Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Nicholls, Harmar
Soames, Capt. C.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Spearman, A. C. M


Kaberry, D.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Speir, R. M.


Keeling, Sir Edward
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Kerr, H. W.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Lambert, Hon G.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stevens, G. P.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Nutting, Anthony
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Odey, G. W.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D
Storey, S.


Leather, E. H. C.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, North)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Osborne, C.
Summers, G. S.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Linstead, H. N.
Peyton, J. W W.
Teeling, W.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Pickthorn, K. W. M
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Pilkingtan, Capt. R. A
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pitman, I. J.
Thompson, Lt. Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Powell, J. Enoch
Tilney, John


Low, A. R. W.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Turner, H. F. L


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Profumo, J. D.
Turton, R. H


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Raikes, Sir Victor
Vosper, D. F.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Redmayne, M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


McAdden, S. J.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Renton, D. L. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Robertson, Sir David
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Maclean, Fitzroy
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Watkinson, H. A.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Roper, Sir Harold
Wellwood, W.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Russell, R. S.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Markham, Major S. F.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marples, A. E.
Scott, R. Donald
Wood, Hon. R


Maude, Angus
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
York, C.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Shepherd, William



Mellor, Sir John
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Smithers Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Sir H. Butcher and Mr. Wills.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.






NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Cullen, Mrs A.
Hannan, W.


Albu, A. H.
Dairies, P.
Hardy, E. A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hargreaves, A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hastings, S.


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hayman, F. H.


Bacon, Miss Alive
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Healey, Denis (Leeds. S.E.)


Baird, J.
Deer, G.
Herbison, Miss M.


Balfour, A.
Delargy, H. J.
Hobson, C. R


Bartley, P.
Dodds, N. N.
Holman, P.


Bence, C. R.
Donnelly, D. L.
Holt, A F.


Bann, Wedgwood
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Houghton, Douglas


Benson, G.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Beswick, F.
Edelman, M.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Blyton, W. R.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Boardman, H.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Bowen, E. R.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Bowles, F. G.
Fernyhough, E.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Fienburgh, W.
Janner, B.


Brockway, A. F.
Finch, H. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Fletcher, Erie (Islington, E.)
Jager, George (Goole)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Follick, M.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Foot, M. M.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Forman, J. C.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Callaghan, L. J.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Carmichael, J.
Galtskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Keenan, W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Gibson, C. W.
Kenyon, C.


Champion, A. J.
Glanville, James
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W


Chapman, W. D
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
King, Dr. H. M.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Kinley, J.


Clunie, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Coldrick, W.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Collick, P. H.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lindgren, G. S.


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanoliy)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
MaoColl, J. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hale, Leslie
McGovern, J


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (CoIn[...] Valley)
McInnes, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
McLeavY, F.







MacMillam, M. K. (Western Isles)
Porter, G.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Price, Joseph T. (West Houghton)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Manuel, A. C.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Mayhew, C. P
Reeves, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Mellish, R. J
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Messer, F.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Tomney, F.


Mikardo, Ian
Rhodes, H.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Mitchison, G. R.
Richards, R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Monslow, W.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Viant, S. P.


Moody, A. S
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wade, D. W.


Morley, R.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wallace, H. W


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Ross, William
Weitzman, D.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Moyle, A.
Short, E. W.
Wells, Williams (Walsall)


Mulley, F. W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
West, D. G.


Nally, W.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Oldfield, W. H.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Oliver, G. H.
Slater, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Orbach, M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wigg. George


Oswald, T.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Padley, W. E.
Snow, J. W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Pannell, Charles
Sparks, J. A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Pargiter, G. A.
Steele, T.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Parker, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Paton, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Yates, V. F.


Pearson, A.
Swingler, S. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Sylvester, G. O.



Popplewell, E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Bowden and Mr. Holmes.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Half-past Eight o'Clock.

Clause 13.—(CESSATION OF TRANSPORT LEVY AND WINDING UP OF TRANSPORT FUND.)

Amendment made; In page 18, line 11, leave out "may," and insert "shall.".—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Clause 14.—(RE-ORGANISATION OF RAILWAYS.)

Mr. Percy Morris: I beg to move, in page 19, line 12, to leave out subsection (2).
We turn now to a different phase of transport. In moving this Amendment, it may be appropriate if I remind the House of the paramount importance of railways in British transport. Very few people seem to realise that it is the busiest system in the world. British Railways carry no fewer than 1,000 million passengers and 285 million tons of freight per annum. Last year they did more business than in any peacetime year before 1939 Seventy per cent. of the revenue of the British Transport Commission is derived from Railway Executive activities.
In pre-nationalisation days there were five main groups—L.M.S., L.N.E., Great Western, Southern and London Transport—which engaged in fierce competition except on the occasions when they combined to try to defeat their competitors on the road. They also made an occasional attempt to get a monopoly of air traffic. Since nationalisation those five main groups have been transferred into seven regions subject to the direction of the Railway Executive, who are the agents of the B.T.C. This organisation has functioned during the last five years. A writer in the January issue of the "British Railway Magazine" quite properly described those years as "Five years of hard labour."
The House should appreciate what has been done during that period, and for the purpose of accuracy I wish to quote the following:
We can point to many successful results of the efforts made to achieve increased efficiency and economy. New standard flat-bottom track has been introduced which is stronger, has 16,900 fewer components to the mile and is cheaper in maintenance than the pre-war track. There has been rapid growth in the use of mechanised appliances; in the last three years, 1,000 miles of track have been laid in pre-assembled lengths. The new British Railways standard locomotives, carriages and wagons have been designed to permit the maximum availability throughout Britain—a result often dreamed of but never tackled in


the old days. The 12 standard types of locomotives which have been evolved will eventually cover the duties now performed by over 400 types. Some 1,500 fewer locomotives are today needed than at the end of 1947, and they are doing more work. Moreover, they now run, on average, 32,183 miles without casualty, compared with the 1949 figure of 15,845 miles. They are also run more efficiently. In 1951 they consumed 2.58 lb. a mile less coal than in 1947, and although they ran 10 million more miles, the coal used decreased by 285,000 tons.
It is only fair to the Railway Executive that those facts should be placed upon the records of the House.
The article goes on:
Types of wagons, in the five years, have been reduced from 480 to 90. New 24f-ton wagons have been produced for coal and maximum capacity wagons for iron ore, while the number of all types of wagons out of service for repairs has, since 1947, been reduced by a half. In building locomotives, coaches and wagons, it has been possible to use all British Railway workshops on a unified national basis, allocating work for any or all regions to the shops best equipped to carry it out, lowering costs by millions of pounds. Unification has enabled through-interregional working of locomotives and crews to be widely introduced, and traffic is now sent by the most direct route, saving both time and cost. It has been possible, without sacrificing efficiency, to reduce the number of district departmental offices by 48, and by simplified working 71 goods depots, 34 marshalling yards and 36 motive power depots and sub-depots have been closed. Hundreds of store items have been standardised and this, with central purchasing, means smaller stocks and big economies. Qualities of paper used, have, for instance, been reduced from 100 different kinds to 17; over 7,300 forms have been eliminated.
That is a very creditable achievement in five years, and it is something of which we have heard nothing at all from hon. Gentlemen opposite. These achievements have been brought about despite the shortage of very valuable material and the heavy restriction on capital expenditure. This is the Executive that Clause 14 proposes to abolish without the Government telling the House what is going to take its place.
8.45 p.m.
In the Committee stage the Minister said that he was sorry that the word "abolish" had been included in the Bill. On reflection, I think he must be very sorry indeed. What he really meant to insert in the Bill was that the Executive should be recast, but having done that he would not have invented anything new, because it was common ground between

the British Transport Commission and the Railway Executive that as their experience increased they would do everything necessary to recast the functions of the Executive to bring about more efficient and economical working.
That recasting process was actually in operation before this Bill was drafted, and if the Parliamentary Secretary is going to reply to this discussion, I ask him to state quite frankly what has happened to the scheme submitted by the British Transport Commission to the Minister in July of last year. The Commission had their own ideas as to how the Railway Executive could be replaced and how their functions could be recast. Although seven months have elapsed since that scheme was submitted, the British Transport Commission have had no acknowledgment.
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House what his right hon. Friend thinks of that scheme if he has seen it. If he has not seen it, why has he not seen it, and if he has studied it and is not prepared to recommend it to the House, why is he objecting to it? In view of the requests that have been made from hon. Members opposite for a new scheme or a different system, I think the right hon. Gentleman owes it to hon. Members on the Government side of the House as well as to the Opposition to give us his views on the subject. It is a very serious matter indeed if the Minister proposes to destroy a very valuable piece of machinery without indicating what is going to take its place.
I gather from the terms of the Clause that there are to be new areas. There are at least seven regions, and are the new areas going to be greater or fewer in number? What are to he their terms of reference? Who is going to co-ordinate their activities? Are they going to report direct to the British Transport Commission, or are we to have a new co-ordinating body, coordinating the activities of the new areas, the number of which we do not know? Nor have we any idea what they are to be given to do. Instead of de-centralising, the Minister will be creating more machinery than there has ever been before, and the whole thing will end in confusion.
The Minister says that he wants this scheme to be prepared by railway experts. Of course he does; but if he is to give


them a right and proper opportunity he ought to have the courtesy to acknowledge their proposals and have them analysed so as to give the House the benefit of his point of view and enable us to come to a conclusion whether the new proposals can be favourably compared with the old. It is because we are concerned about these matters that we have tabled the Amendment.
Decentralisation has been in operation for some considerable time and it is going on in an orderly fashion. The transport industry has benefited from that move. When transport was nationalised it was a tremendous venture, not only for the Government but for the men and women employed in the industry. They had had an unhappy and in some respects bitter experience with their former employers. The last Government said, "In nationalising transport we will take care that the best interests of the employees will not suffer. We will not interfere with your superannuation funds and we will give very fair consideration to your applications for increases in wages and salaries. We will do what has never been done before, give fair consideration to welfare schemes for the employees of the railways."
The employees wondered, "Can we trust this Government? It has been bad enough under private enterprise. Now we are going to be nationalised. Shall we be any better off?" They were conservative by nature but happily they were not Conservative in politics. They gave their votes for the Labour Government, and in doing so brought about a transformation in the industry that they could not have imagined would take place in so short a time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not widen his argument beyond the scope of the Railway Executive.

Mr. Morris: If I have offended, Sir, I am very sorry. I am trying to prove that in abolishing the Railway Executive the Government are taking away something which has proved to be a public and a private asset. It is because of the fear we have that the abolition of this Executive will be to the detriment of the employees as well as the public interest that I am describing what I regard as the human aspect of the matter.
Perhaps I may make one more pertinent reference. The Railway Executive have been trying to prevail on the employees to recognise that they have a mutual stake in the prosperity of transport, and they have been patient and persevering in their efforts. They have set up a college to train young men for the higher posts. Even as I speak, at Shanklin, Isle of Wight, a school is going on which is attended by representatives of the management and staffs of all grades. The result of the experiment proves that it is highly successful; but just as the Railway Executive and the B.T.C. are managing to win the confidence and the loyalty of the staffs, somebody says, "This Executive must go." We are not afraid of a change and we are quite willing to do so, but we would like to know what we are to change to. If the Minister has the slightest idea of what he is going to do, we ask him to accept the Amendment.
The Minister has given the subject of transport very careful study during the Recess and since the Bill has been brought forward. I do not deny, and I imagine, that the Parliamentary Secretary has done so, too. I cannot resist the conclusion that the more Ministers have studied the Bill the more they have realised in their hearts that this is a bad Bill. I wish they had the courage to go to the Prime Minister and to the Cabinet and say, "We have been compelled to examine the Bill in the greatest detail. We are still of the view of the Government that we ought not to have nationalisation of road transport. We are retaining the nationalisation of railways, but experience teaches us that some of the proposals are to the detriment of the public, of trade and commerce, and of the employees. If we persist in this we shall lose the confidence of every section of the community."
In submitting this Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters, my appeal to them is to have that courage and to say, "We have placed the welfare of the country first and foremost "The Prime Minister himself said in a speech about two months ago that a Government does not demean itself when it yields to the pressure of public opinion and when it agrees that the evidence submitted is of such a character that the Government cannot deny its validity.
I say that in view of the evidence we are submitting in respect of this and other Amendments, the Government cannot resist the conclusion that this Bill is not the best thing they could do; that it requires, not recasting, not amending, but to be thrown on the scrap heap, and a further effort made. If hon. Members opposite really are concerned about the prosperity of the economy of Great Britain, and if they have a kindly thought for the welfare of the employees concerned, they will say to the Prime Minister, "Let us make a further effort. We shall not lose a scrap of dignity, indeed we might enhance our reputation with the British public and make the British transport service the best service in the world."

Mr. A. J. Champion: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris), who so ably moved the Amendment, has a knowledge of this subject which is certainly not exceeded in this House, and I doubt whether it is exceeded outside. My hon. Friend rightly called attention to what will be some of the effects of the destruction of the Railway Executive set up under the 1947 Act, which has already begun to show some of the tremendous advantages resulting to this country to the travelling public and to the transport users from the centralisation which could take place only under such a body as was set up by that Act.
The Railway Executive began to work on something which was a legacy from pre-war days. The 1921 Act was an advance upon all that had preceded it, but there were obvious flaws in that Act and the difficulties which were discovered as a result of its working were put right by the 1947 Act. The later Act created a system on the railways which, as I have stated, was already beginning to show first-class results for the community.
This is to be destroyed, and in a way which we on this side of the House deprecate strongly. It is not, as in the case of the 1921 Act, being brought before the House in such a way that we can discuss thoroughly what is the intention of the Government of the day for the future of this great industry. Instead of that, we are told that there is to be a

scheme prepared by the Transport Commission, who will in turn report to the Government, etc. The scheme will probably be brought to this House—indeed, it must be—in such a way that we shall be able either to reject or accept it and we shall have no possibility of amending the scheme which will finally be brought before us. It really means that the House of Commons will be practically powerless in a matter which will affect the future of the industry and of those employed in it.
9.0 p.m.
As I see it, there is only one thing that the Government have yet said in favour of their proposals and against the Railway Executive as it now exists and works; that is that the Railway Executive procedure brings about excessive centralisation. The Government cling to that dogmatic assertion and repeat it over and over again without ever bringing before the House a shread of evidence as to the difficulties created as a result of this so-called excessive centralisation.
The very reverse, of course, is the case. The central system produced by the 1947 Act is, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, bringing great economies to the railway system. It is doing something which the 1921 Act started upon. It is true that hon. Members who go up and down the railway system can always find someone who will say that the old system was better; one can always find a railway servant who will say just that, someone who has what I call a nostalgic longing for yesterday.
I went through that process myself. I was an old Taff Vale Railway worker. That was one of the small railways absorbed under the 1921 Act, and I remember that for many years after that Act came into being, after we had merged with the Great Western Railway. from time to time we would look back and say that things were all done so much better under the old Taff Vale Railway.
But the younger members who really examined the position and who were not looking back towards their lost youth, as were some of the older ones, came to appreciate that what had been done by the merger from the Taff Vale Railway to the Great Western Railway was a move in the right direction, a move which produced great railway economies and went


far towards saving the Great Western Railway and the whole of the area covered by the Taff Vale Railway from many of the difficulties which they would inevitably have suffered had it not been for the 1921 Act. Looking backwards, that longing is rather like my own longing for mother's cooking; it is a nostalgic looking back to the appetite that I used to have.
What is happening now, and what is inevitable under the Act—that is, the Executive and centralisation, of which complaints are made—is that we are going through to some extent the same sort of process as we went through under the 1921 Act. Already we see great economies emerging as a result of the 1947 Act.
Looking back again at my experience from the 1921 Act, I remember one single depot in South Wales where we passed on traffic from the old Taff Vale Railway to the old Barry Railway as a result of the operation of what some called "this centralisation." In those days, £260 a week was saved as a result of that single action. Very much the same sort of thing is inevitably going on under the existing system of merging the four groups into one single group under the Railway Executive.
Mr. John Elliot, the chairman of the Railway Executive, has from time to time stressed the advantages that are accruing to the people as a result of what is happening now in the industry. Only some four years have passed since the Act became operative and in that time, as Mr. Elliot so well points out, we have begun to produce the results that we want to produce. But he also says, and in this every practical railway-man will agree, that we are up to now only touching some of the fringes of the economies that can be made, and will be made, if we are allowed to continue.
These points are important from the point of view not only of the travelling public but of men engaged in this industry. It is an old and common phrase, but it means something to us in this industry, that men's lives are invested in it. It is not right that such an industry should be played with by a Government as this Government are playing with it at this time. The Government are only doing

this in order to satisfy those supporters who, when they were sitting on these benches, time after time complained of excessive centralisation. The vast majority of experts on transport who really understand the matter are against the Government on these Clauses.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I think it would be a common view that where there is a large merger of one kind or another it is almost invariably accompanied by certain economies in some directions and increases in costs in other directions. One would not expect the body itself to speak so much of the increases in costs as about the economies to be effected. It is not to be wondered at that the hon. Member for Swansea. West (Mr. P. Morris), who moved the Amendment with such conviction and rather seemed to make a second Second Reading speech, drew attention mainly to the economies which have been effected.
The trouble is that very often in these large mergers which leave no competition against them the economies are transitory. Economies in technical working may be offset by very large increases in administration. It will be no part of what I have to say tonight to go into detail—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because, for one thing, that would be completely out of order.

Mr. Popplewell: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that there has been a very large increase in the administration? I think that in fairness to the House, having made an assertion like that, he should give an indication of the reasons for such an observation.

Mr. Macpherson: I did say that it was the usual experience in large mergers for economies to be effected in one direction and for increases in costs to take place in another.

Mr. Popplewell: But the hon. Member made an assertion and did not support it.

Mr. Macpherson: What I am saying is that those who have experience of these matters would expect economies to result in some directions and for increases to take place in others. They would not expect the company effecting this merger to talk so much about increases in costs as about economies. The Amendment


first denies that the Railway Executive should be abolished. I grant that it has done a great deal of good work. There is a view that the Railway Executive may have been necessary in the earlier stages of the merger but, in the nature of things, it would have disappeared anyway in due course. We might easily have reached that stage in a very short time, even if the party opposite had remained in power. In any case, there is nothing under this Bill to prevent central organisations remaining for certain functions, and there is nothing to prevent the economies which have been referred to being continued where they are capable of achieving the greatest results.
The House was reminded by the hon. Member for Swansea, West what a gigantic organisation this is. The railways are indeed a gigantic organisation. They employ about 600,000 workers and their revenue is about £400 million a year. Surely there are good reasons for at least considering decentralising measures in such a body as this. This Amendment seeks to say that unless the Government are prepared to lay down in the Bill exactly the lines on which that decentralisation is to take place we should not have any decentralisation at all. That was the argument put forward. Surely it is better in this case to leave the plan for decentralisation to be worked out by the Commission itself. That is what is proposed by the Bill.

Mr. P. Morris: But did not the hon. Member hear me say that the British Transport Commission has already submitted to the Minister a scheme for the recasting of the Railway Executive and that it has not yet been acknowledged?

Mr. Macpherson: That brings me to the next point I was about to make, which is the answer. It is that we are now faced with changed circumstances. This Bill provides for competition. It provides that there shall no longer be a monopoly of long-distance transport in this country. That being the case, clearly a more flexible organisation is required in the railways as well as in the road services because if the railways are to be given a fair chance to compete with the road services decentralisation is imperative. In order to obtain that decentralisation so as to have an organisation which will respond easily to competition and be able

to carry on in the face of competition it is of paramount importance that a scheme of decentralisation should be worked out.

Mr. Manuel: I should like to be clear on the point about competition. The point with which we are concerned deals with the railways. Does the hon. Member visualise competition by one area against another or is he referring to uneconomic lines to the Highlands, where we are having so much difficulty in connection with freight charges and fares? What does the hon. Member mean when he talks about competition within this railway group, which he agrees is centrally directed?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Member is very quick to make a point, but I should have thought that it was perfectly obvious that what I am talking about is competition between road and rail. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Amendment does not deal with that."] Certainly it does. If the railways are to be in a position to deal with competition they must be in a position to decentralise and it is desirable that a scheme for decentralisation should be worked out. That is the complete answer to the hon. Member's point. The hon. Member for Swansea, West moved this Amendment very persuasively and with conviction and based his case on a scheme which was submitted before we knew what the Government were to propose. Clearly that sort of scheme is not longer appropriate to the changed circumstances. I should have thought that the hon. Member would have agreed that it is at least desirable to revise that scheme, and this provision of the Bill gives the Commission the opportunity, and indeed places it under the obligation, to do so.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: The whole House will be very sorry for the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). He was obviously labouring very hard to try to convince, not us—he did not hope to convince us—but himself, that he had a case. He lamentably failed, and I am certain that he is not very satisfied with his own argument.
He started by asserting very confidently that, in addition to economies, there would be an increase in administration. When challenged on that point he failed to give any evidence at all. The


whole House knows that there is ample evidence to the contrary, and I would give one example. There was on the L.M.S. Railway a special post occupied by Lord Stamp. His salary was never officially known, but everybody has said it was £20,000 a year. That was a specially created post over and above the board of directors. There was a board of directors for every company. Yet no one on the new board representing all the railways receives anything like that salary.

Mr. G. Wilson: Is the hon. Member seriously advancing the suggestion that the Railway Executive is costing less than the old boards?

Mr. Hynd: I am suggesting that very definitely, and I could produce figures to prove that the cost of the Railway Executive now is much less than the total cost of the 120 separate railway boards in the past. Positions on those boards were occupied by people with no real experience. They were put on for all sorts of reasons. There was a famous athlete who was a member of one of the boards. They were not put on for business reasons. The present Executive is a business concern.
That is only one example, but the hon. Member used a worse argument. He told us it was essential to de-centralise the railways so that they could compete with the roads. I do not know whether any other hon. Member was able to follow that argument, but I found it very difficult to do so. If I understood him aright the hon. Member was arguing that, for example, in order that Lewis's should compete with other shops, Lord Woolton should de-centralise the whole of his monopoly and that it should be turned into a number of little businesses so that they might compete with other little businesses. If we compare the arguments used by the hon. Member for Dumfries with those advanced by my hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Amendment everyone must agree that the arguments of my hon. Friends were overwhelming.
I would give another example of what has happened as a result of the creation of this centralised body which the Government are now attempting to remove. When I worked on the railway my job was to write out invoices for goods. If

those goods were being sent from the North of Scotland to the South of England they might pass over half-a-dozen or more different railway systems. It was necessary that each of those companies should get a share of the charge paid. In order to do this a new organisation was set up called the railway clearing house. I think I am right in saying that thousands of clerks were employed in tracing the goods from the North of Scotland to the South of England, tracing the miles travelled over each separate railway system and allocating the charge, That was the work of the railway clearing house which, except for a skeleton organisation, has now disappeared.
That is the kind of thing which has been replaced by this centralised body. I think the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West P. Morris) is fundamental. Having removed the Executive, do the Government intend to replace it with some other body, or is this all camouflage? I am one of those sceptics who does not believe that the Government intend to make much difference in the present arrangement regarding the railways. I believe all this business of doing away with the Railway Executive, and setting up a new body under a different name, and saying authority will be given to different regions, is all eyewash. It is intended to cover up the other and much more important and more menacing part of the Bill, namely that relating to road transport.
Regarding the railways, we have a system now which is de-centralising administration, which is working smoothly and which must have a centralised body. If we do not have the Railway Executive we must replace it with something. Even when we had these 120 railway companies before 1919 we had to have a centralised body which kept changing its name every few years. It was as much as I could do to keep up to date with the changes of name of the centralised body; but there always was one. There had to be one for purposes of rates conferences, wage negotiations and all sorts of other reasons, and especially for negotiating with the Government and arranging contacts with this House.
If the intention is simply to remove the Railway Executive as such, what is the


good of doing that? I say that that is only trying to deceive the public and that the Minister would be well advised to drop this idea. If he is serious in pursuing this objective he must answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West. What does he propose to put in its place; or, if he does not propose to put anything in its place, how are these separate regionalised railway authorities to work? They must have some co-ordination or they will fall to pieces.

Mr. Powell: The undoubted eloquence and persuasiveness with which the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) opened this debate may have had the effect of distracting the attention of the House from what is the real question for decision. He fell, and subsequent speakers have fallen, into a simple logical fallacy. If I may give it its technical name, it is the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is that?"] I was about to oblige hon. Members opposite with a translation of which I felt they might be in need. It is the fallacy of mistaking sequence in time for sequence in cause.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West said that during the years since 1947 there have been steady and in some ways striking improvements in the working efficiency of the railways and in the methods which they have employed. Since 1947 there has been a Railway Executive. Therefore, said he, it is because of the Railway Executive that we have seen these improvements in railway efficiency. That was the argument, and that precisely is the fallacy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am now about to point out why it is a fallacy.
If we go back over railway history, not for the last five years but for the last 25 or 50 years, we shall find a similar steady increase in efficiency, a similar process of improvement going on in the years between the wars.

Mr. D. Jones: That is exactly what we did not see.

Mr. Powell: If hon. Members will cast their minds back they will recollect that on the railways in the 1930s the great developments of electrification—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] If hon. Members opposite are seeking to deny that there

were great improvements on the British railways between 1919 and 1939, and that there were definite and regular increases in working efficiency and in ton-miles per engine-hour, then they are simply flying in the face of the known facts. That process has continued since the war; it has been resumed and has continued.
What we have to do is not simply to isolate one section of this long process and attribute it arbitrarily to one cause—the centralised organisation of the railways since 1947—but to decide whether the changes since 1947 in efficiency and modernisation, and those which are likely to follow, have been as fast and as marked as they would have been under an alternative organisation. That is the simple question which the House has before it.

Mr. P. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is supporting my argument. I concede him this point. What he said is partly correct. There have been improvements, but the major improvements have always emerged after a major measure of unification. For instance, in 1921, when we reduced the 121 railway companies to four, again in 1933 with London Transport, and again in 1947, whenever there has been a substantial measure of coordination and unification, progress follows, but the present proposal is to destroy that unification.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. At any rate, we have this in common; we are agreed that, under the organisation of the four main line companies which were established by the 1921 Act, there were relatively steady and marked improvements in railway efficiency and modernisation over a 20-year period, and that that process and that trend have continued since 1947, not merely under the four main line companies, but under a centralised single structure.
The question which this House must decide, and must not avoid, is whether the process since 1947 has been due to that centralised structure, or whether centralisation in the form in which we have had it has been a handicap and not an advantage. That is the narrow and simple issue which the House will decide when it decides whether or not to include this subsection.
So far from complaints and anxieties about centralisation being some sort of


bogy which has been thought up on these Benches in the last few months, it has been a constant pre-occupation of hon. Members of all parties ever since the British Transport Commission was brought into existence. This anxiety is not limited to one party; it has been very generally felt. I will only trouble the House with one or two reminders. There is, for example, what the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Ernest Davies) said in his work on "Problems of Public Ownership," when he recognised the besetting anxiety which we must feel in considering nationalised industries and the effects of centralisation. The hon. Member wrote:
The tendency inherent in all large scale industry.. can be kept in check if there is the maximum degree of decentralisation consistent with central control of national policy and planning.
The question which the House has before it is whether the present organisation of the Railway Executive in the British Transport Commission is the maximum degree of de-centralisation consistent with national policy and planning. That is precisely the question, and I am willing to accept the formulation of the question by the hon. Member for Enfield, West.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman is willing to accept my formulation because that meets the case we have been making. We say that to a certain extent there is to be a national body with de-centralisation and a national body for co-ordination. We have never denied that. But if the hon. Gentleman would continue the quotation and read the qualifications I make, in which I justify the necessity for a central national body and say how important it is, he will realise that his case has been a little badly put.

Mr. Powell: Both a central body in the form of the British Transport Commission and the organisation for specific coordination will, of course, exist, and are provided for under the Clause. But there has been a widespread feeling that the present organisation of the Railway Executive does not give the maximum decentralisation which is consistent with the advantages of national planning and control.
I have referred before in connection with this Bill—and I make no apology for referring again—to the work of an expert on railways published by the Fabian Society in regard to this problem. He came to the conclusion, after discussing de-centralisation, that there was
insufficient determination to face the problem of de-centralisation as the challenging one it is.
A writer of the Fabian Society itself came to the conclusion that the challenge of decentralisation on British Railways had not been met.

Mr. Davies: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's courtesy in giving way again. Will he give the House the date of the pamphlet published by the Fabian Society, and does he realise that it is based on material that is at least three years old, on investigations which took place a long time before the recent reorganisation in the Railway Executive had taken place?

Mr. Powell: It is about two years ago. The point I am making is that this anxiety about the consequences of centralisation in an organisation like British Railways is not a mere party bogy which has been trumped up for the purpose. It is something which besets the minds of unprejudiced people looking at the problem.
There are two dangers of centralisation which this Clause as it stands would enable us to escape. The first is the functional organisation of British Railways as at present.

Mr. Popplewell: How do you know?

Mr. Powell: I said this Clause enables us to escape from the following two dangers accompanying the present form of centralisation.

Mr. Popplewell: What does it say?

Mr. Powell: If the hon. Member will read the Clause he will find that it enables an alternative organisation to be produced which avoids the two difficulties I am going to mention. The first is the functional organisation of the railways under the Railway Executive, which means there is a functional chain of control right from the top to the bottom. Even in pre-nationalisation days it was widely believed that the London, Midland and Scottish Railway had gone


much too far for efficiency in this direction of functional control.
What the Railway Executive have done is to multiply any error there might have been there by stereotyping a functional organisation for the whole of British Railways and thus maximising the channelling of decisions from the bottom upwards and reducing the authority of the managers at each level. That is the first danger of centralisation from which we can escape by means of this Clause. But there is a second danger which I think is much greater.
I took down a remark made by the hon. Member for Swansea, West which, coming from a person of his experience and knowledge, I felt was very important evidence. Referring to the four main line railway companies in pre-war days, he said:
They. engaged in fierce competition except on occasions when they got together to deal with the menace of the roads.
By means of that fierce competition between those four entities, between those four personalities—and those who know the attitude of railway men towards the old companies will not regard that word "personalities" as an exaggeration—there was provided an objective standard of achievement and efficiency which disappears in a centralised, unified organisation such as we have at present.
The question the House must decide is whether progress since 1947 has been as rapid as it could have been and as it should have been. I say that there is no means of forming a certain, objective point of view on that because we have no objective standard. One of the perils of centralisation and nationalised monopoly is that it destroys the objective standard, the means of comparison which competition creates. By these structures which will be set up under this Clause we shall regain contact with reality, because we shall regain the opportunity of comparing the results which are obtained by different and largely independent managements facing the same or similar problems in different ways. The experience of the country and of this House, the whole power of the public to form a judgment of the weal or woe of the British railway system, will be immensely strengthened by the changes which this Clause makes possible. I hope the House will pass it without alteration.

Mr. Mitchison: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him one question? Do I gather that he recognises that there are at present competitive conditions in the iron and steel trade?

Mr. Popplewell: After the two speeches from the Government benches, it is difficult for anyone who knows anything about transport to understand their approach, unless it be that it is merely a doctrinaire approach. We heard the most ridiculous assertions by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) about the large increase in administrative expenses on the railways in his attempt to justify opposition to this Amendment. When he was challenged we found that, as usual, it was only talk; there was no foundation for it in any shape or form. Theirs is a purely doctrinaire approach. Then we heard the woolly ramblings of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I am sure he will forgive me for saying that, because that is what they were. He threw out a challenge and said it was a fallacy to say that there had been improvements since nationalisation.

Mr. Powell: No.

Mr. Popplewell: I jotted down the words at the time. I suggest that he reads them tomorrow.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: He never said that.

Mr. Popplewell: He went on to say that improvements had been taking place during the last 25 years. I agree with him wholeheartedly there. But when he says it is a fallacy to suggest that improvements have been made since 1947, he shows that he knows nothing at all about the subject.
I must compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) on his speech. I wish the Minister had been here to listen to it because, knowing the Minister's open mind after the number of times he has already changed his mind, I am sure he would have changed his mind again and accepted the wisdom that fell from my hon. Friend, which showed that under the Railway Executive wonderful improvements have been made over the whole of the railway structure. Whether it be standardisation or the operational side, as outlined by my hon. Friend, those of us


who understand railway operations have only to compare pre-war days, or even the war-time period, when we had the various regions and points of transfer, to appreciate the bottlenecks that there were in the transfer of traffic. Traffic had to be stopped because it could not be dealt with at the transfer points. Since it has come under the auspices of the Railway Executive, this stoppage at transfer points has been unknown.

Mr. G. Wilson: Embargoes.

Mr. Popplewell: Embargoes have been unknown since nationalisation, as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), if he knows anything about the operating side of the railways, will agree.

Mr. Wilson: I certainly do know. I think that it was two years ago that I raised this matter on an Adjournment debate in this House—if the hon. Member will look up HANSARD he will see that is so—when I gave particulars of bad cases of embargo since nationalisation, and since I have been a Member of this House, which affected my Division. There were very serious embargoes lasting over a period of weeks.

Mr. Popplewell: The hon. Gentleman may have picked a case out of a new thing, but week after week we used to get foolscap sheets of these delays, stoppages and embargoes. That is practically unknown now. We may get an isolated one now and again. Since nationalisation we have had colour-light signalling and developments on the electrical side. Wonderful steps forward have been taken. We hear a lot about the safety devices on the railways. We hear hon. Members opposite making a tremendous outcry if there has been a railway accident and coming in full cry to the Minister asking for the development of automatic controls.

Mr. Wilson: 1906.

Mr. Popplewell: How far did we get under the old system with it?

Mr. Wilson: On the Great Western Railway we had it established in 1906.

Mr. Popplewell: What was done under the old private companies to get it? Nothing. Today there is a seheme on

foot, which is likely to cost some £50 million in capital, to establish it all over the railways within a short period of time. This has been actively proceeding.
Our object in moving the deletion of this subsection is because we feel that the House is entitled to know what is in the mind of the Minister about replacing the present structure. It is no use his saying that he is going to be guided by what the British Transport Commission suggest to him in the future. This scheme, at the moment, is one which has been thought about and put into operation by the British Transport Commission. Now he is urging the Commission to overthrow what they had done previously, and is giving them a blank cheque, as it were, to produce something which they know will be less efficient than the present structure.
Under the 1947 Act, the present structure is not laid down as something which cannot be altered. There has been considerable talk about amendments to be made here and amendments to be made there. A very pertinent question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West. He asked what was the answer of the Minister to the representations made to him last July by the British Transport Commission for some alteration. Surely the House is entitled to know. The present structure has evolved an efficient organisation. No one is going to argue that it is the last word in efficiency, but, before it is thrown overboard, the House is entitled to know what the Minister has in mind to replace it.
9.45 p.m.
In the Bill the Minister suggests some weird type of scheme. We are very suspicious of it. Does it establish the principle of regions as they are today with what might be called boards of directors re-instituted? Does it visualise big alterations in the present regional structure? If so, on what lines? Does it visualise the present regional structure more or less remaining and full powers being given back to the chief regional officer acting as the general manager previously did? If the regions are to be as suggested, with over-all power being given to the chief regional officer, the House is entitled to know just how far that power will extend. It is nonsensical for hon. Members opposite to argue that there


has been a greater curtailment of powers granted to the chief regional officers than was the case with the former general managers.

Mr. Wilson: It is not nonsense.

Mr. Popplewell: It is absolute nonsense to say that there has been any curtailment of power. Today the regional officers have in many ways even greater power than did the old general managers. If some subordinates do not use the powers vested in them, that is another matter and it might receive some examination.
However, before we give this power to the Minister we ought to have some indication of his line of thought. We do not like the suggestion that persons should be appointed, probably in a part-time capacity, who will draw a salary to act as regional directors or something of that description. Just how far would their powers go? The 1921 structure was a tremendous advance upon what obtained previously, but we know the difficulties which were inherent in that structure and we do not want a return to anything like that. The Minister ought to indicate to the House precisely the principles upon which the Commission will work.
The Minister ought not to do anything to destroy what is now being built up by the railways. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West referred to the tremendous experiment now taking place at Shanklin. That was never visualised under the old set-up, but it is developing and members of railway management and the workers who have been to Shanklin return full of praise for the new venture, which is calculated to bring about full partnership within the industry. We can achieve this sort of thing only through some sort of centralised control.
We are interested in the efficiency of this transport system, and under this shocking Bill British Railways will be saddled with a tremendous financial difficulty. We do not want additional shackles placed on the railway system. Something fair and reasonable should be provided. It is a shocking lack of Parliamentary manners to treat the House in this way, pushing through a Bill like this without the Minister telling the House what he has in mind about the future structure of the railways.

Mr. Braithwaite: It is not without interest, if somewhat paradoxical, that since we moved at 8.30 p.m. into what the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) described as "this new field" and started to discuss the railway aspect of the Bill, the temperature has risen not inconsiderably in the House and there is certainly more liveliness about the debate. That is in inverse ratio to the experience of hon. Members with their postbags. Nothing has caused less criticism from the public as a whole than the proposal for the de-centralisation of the railways. One would expect the Parliamentary Secretary to be something of a lightning conductor in these matters, so far as his postbag is concerned, anyhow. I have not received a single indication from my constituency of over 60,000 electors containing many railway workers. By the same token, the discussion on road transport went through in an atmosphere of calm.
I want to suggest to hon. Members opposite that the reason they are more vehement at this stage of the Bill is that we have laid our fingers upon a sacred dogma, the dogma of nationalisation. We, of course, discussed this and here I am replying to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell)—for a considerable time in Committee, and my right hon. Friend spoke at considerable length on this subject of what our views were on how we should shape the de-centralisation of the railways. If hon. Members will turn to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 15th December and, in particular columns 1048 and 1049, they will find therein contained the information for which the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) asked the account of the representations made to my right hon. Friend by the Commission and what followed from that. Indeed, a study of the OFFICIAL REPORT Shows that my right hon. Friend was subject to a good deal of interruption so that the matter could be brought out more clearly.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to columns 1048 and 1049 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, in which were pointed out the differences which had arisen with the Transport Commission and where there is quoted a letter from the Chairman in which he said that the Commission had laid certain new Clauses before the Minister. The Minister then made a categorical statement that he would see that these Clauses


were made available to the Opposition. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what has happened to these Clauses, why has the Minister's promise not been carried out, and why have we not been made aware of their contents?

Mr. Braithwaite: The hon. Gentleman is rather hasty in these matters. One can deal with only one point at once. I was coming to the subject mentioned by the hon. Member. Incidentally, I was waiting for the return of the hon. Member for Swansea, West, who spoke so eloquently in moving this Amendment. He has now returned to the House, and perhaps I may repeat what I was saying. I stated that my right hon. Friend spoke at some length on 15th December on the topic of railway re-organisation and de-centralisation. I had referred the House to columns 1048 and 1049 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I think it might be of value if at this stage I made a further statement on this topic; I propose to do so now.
The Commission have made proposals concerning railway re-organisation, some of which would have covered the abolition of the Railway Executive. These proposals would, of course, have involved far-reaching changes in the Commission's organisation and my right hon. Friend could not have accepted them as they stood. In a matter of such importance as the re-organisation of the railways, the Government feel that it should be carried out under a statutory procedure which would give users and others who might be affected an opportunity of expressing their views on any such scheme before it is carried into effect. As regards Clauses 14 and 15, about which the hon. Member for Swansea, West was so anxious—

Mr. Sparks: Do we understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say now that all proposals for the re-organisation of British Railways are to be submitted to the consideration of outside people and of users of the industry?

Mr. Braithwaite: The point I was trying to make is that when I was asked what had happened to certain proposals of the British Transport Commission, I said that my right hon. Friend had given them consideration and that we felt that so important a change of structure as de-centralisation should be carried out by statute. That would enable those affected

—and there are many categories—to make their objections here in this House. When we proceed by statute we give to all the various sections that opportunity. I hope that the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) is not reading anything sinister into that procedure.

Mr. P. Morris: Would it not have assisted the right hon. Gentleman if, without committing himself at all, he had advised us what the proposals of the B.T.C. are? Had he done that, we might not have tabled our Amendment. What are the proposals?

Mr. Braithwaite: Hon. Gentlemen opposite keep interrupting just one step ahead of my speech. I am afraid that the hon. Member and his hon. Friends have not been sufficiently studious, and that goes for the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) as well, because the draft Clauses were placed in the Library by my right hon. Friend where they were available for study by any hon. Member.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that it would have been courteous if he or the Minister of Transport had informed us during the remaining stages of the Committee that those proposals had been placed in the Library? The right hon. Gentleman gave us no indication whatever how these Clauses were to be made available to us.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to me, I must tell him that very soon after I made that promise, and while the Committee stage was still in progress, I placed those Clauses in the Library. I did not feel it necessary to announce that I had done so. When I was asked to make them available I said I would do so, and I thought that the promise would be believed.

Mr. Davies: So far as I know, the Minister on no occasion said that he would place them in the Library. He said that he would make them available to the Opposition. Those were his words as he said them in Committee. Surely it would have been possible for him during the Committee stage to refer to the fact that he had placed the draft Clauses in the Library?

Mr. Braithwaite: My right hon. Friend took a course which made them available to the Opposition and to the supporters of the Government. The best


method is to place them in the Library. The hon. Gentleman would have been better employed in finding that out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Certainly.

Mr. William Ross: Slick.

Mr. Braithwaite: What is slick about that? I can only say that hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to take these matters more seriously and find out what is happening.

Mr. Ross: We take them as seriously as the Parliamentary Secretary does.

Mr. Braithwaite: Does the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) wish to interrupt?

Mr. Ross: No. I have already interrupted.

Mr. Braithwaite: The debate which we had in Committee, and which was of very considerable length, was upon an Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) to delete subsection (2, a). With the permission of the Chair, in that case Mr. Speaker, the debate ranged over the whole wide question of railway reorganisation, and hon. Gentlemen opposite made it clear then, as they have done again tonight, that the abolition of the Railway Executive was ill-advised, in their view, and that it would recall the conditions which followed the passage of the Railways Act, 1921. I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), who told us that when he was working on the Taff Vale Railway—

Mr. Manuel: That was a joke.

Mr. Braithwaite: The hon. Gentleman does me an injustice. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East said he was at work on the Taff Vale railway, which was absorbed by the Great Western Railway under the 1921 Act, and he had a feeling of nostalgia, whereas the younger men coming along did not feel that particular malady. Having recourse to this interesting volume, the tell-tale volume, "Dod's Parliamentary Companion," which tells the history of all of us, I find that the hon. Gentleman and myself are running almost neck and neck along the road of life and that I am a little ahead of him. Certainly, I can say that in 1921—without giving any secrets away—both he and I belonged to the younger generation which,

if it had nostalgia at all, had it only for what had happened in their teens. It is in fact the young men who are inclined in these days to seek change while it is for the middle-aged to develop nostalgia. That is true of the railways as well.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Champion: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I was suggesting that the nostalgia was on the part of the older men, that the younger men were able to view this a little more objectively, and that a great change for the better had taken place for transport users as a result of the merger under the 1921 Act.

Mr. Braithwaite: Everyone felt it was an advantage when the Great Western Railway took over the Taff Vale Railway, but the hon. Gentleman has put in better language what I was trying to say. The Amendment before us now goes a great deal further than that moved by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South when we were in the Committee stage. It would delete from the proposals of the Bill not only the requirement that railway re-organisation schemes should provide for the abolition of the Executive, which we have been discussing for the last few minutes, but also the requirement that the scheme should provide for the various area railway authorities and the delegation of suitable functions to them by the British Transport Commission.
The Government have made it plain over and over again through all the stages of this Bill that we sincerely believe it to be essential to carry out a radical scheme of de-centralisation if the railways are to play the part which we want to see them play in the national economy. I shall certainly not repeat the arguments adduced on the Second Reading and since, if only on account of time, but I have not heard any hon. Member take up this evening the following point which may be of some comfort to the hon. Member for Swansea, West who feels so deeply on this subject. We have not said at any stage, in the White Paper or since, that in our view everything that has been done in the way of the centralisation of the railways is bad and must go out of the nearest window. May I repeat what my right hon. Friend said in Committee, that we are anxious that, where central control has proved beneficial, it should not be disturbed. There are advantages and those will be carefully safeguarded.
By the same token we believe that there is an unanswerable case for the de-centralisation of the railways. The hon. Gentleman, in moving his Amendment, rather made that case for us by suggesting that the Commission were themselves at work upon a scheme for de-centralisation. In fact he asked what had happened. I tell him now, as I said a little earlier, that there have been many proposals of one kind or another which could have covered the abolition of the Railway Executive, but under the framework of the Bill it is for the Commission to put forward a scheme. During the Committee stage my right hon. Friend indicated quite clearly what he thought the main framework of that scheme should be. To pass this Amendment would be to throw a spanner into that machinery, and therefore I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Now what have you said?

Mr. Ernest Davies: In rising to follow the Minister I want to make it clear to my hon. Friends behind me that I am not doing so with the intention of closing this debate. I rise because the Parliamentary Secretary has just told us absolutely nothing. He has given us no answer to the questions put by my hon. Friends, and he has given us no clearer indication than we had at the outset, when my hon. Friend moved this Amendment, of what is the real intention of the Government in regard to the reorganisation of the railways. He has not convinced us, nor have any of his hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate convinced us, of any reasons whatsoever why the Railway Executive should be abolished.
Certain questions which we have frequently put to the Minister—we raised them during the Committee stage—have not yet been answered. First, we were informed that the Commission had put a scheme to the Minister as long ago as last July. The Minister said during the Committee stage that he was not then free to inform us what were the proposals which the Commission put forward. He made it quite clear that the Commission were opposed to Clauses 14 and 15 as they are now written into the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that they had

put forward an alternative scheme in July and that he had discussed it with them, but he refused to tell us what that scheme was. What we would like to know is what has happened to that scheme. Has the Minister rejected it or is it still under consideration? Is he going to inform us of what it consisted?
The second and, perhaps, more important aspect in regard to the proposals of the Commission is the new clauses which they put before the Minister. During the Committee stage, he quoted the letter of the Deputy-Chairman, in which it was stated that the Commission could not accept the existing Clauses and had proposed two alternative ones. I asked a few minutes ago what had happened to them, and the Minister informed us that they had been placed in the Library.
The House has received treatment from the Minister in this particular which is not worthy of him. He told us quite clearly that he would publish in any seemly way the two Clauses proposed by the Commission. We pressed him and suggested that they could be included in a White Paper or some appropriate publication. He said that he did not think that that was appropriate, but that he would see that those Clauses were made available to the Opposition.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have all been in the House quite a long time—at any rate, the hon. Gentleman and I have—and the phrase "made available to Parliament as a whole," which is the phrase that I used in column 1049 on 15th December, has in the eyes and ears of most Members a very definite meaning. "Made available to Parliament as a whole" means "being placed in the Library," and I did this straightaway. I am not at all sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) did not telephone me about it—some hon. Gentleman did from the Opposition benches—and I took the opportunity to see whether my promise had been carried out. That was quite shortly afterwards, and it has been available in the Library for many weeks for any Member to see.

Mr. Popplewell: On the schemes put forward by the Minister?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have bad two months since the Committee stage. If any hon. Member had asked me where they were, I should have said that they were


"made available to Parliament as a whole" in the well known way by being placed in the Library.

Mr. Davies: I do not think that Members are expected to go snooping around —[HON. MEMBERS; "What?"]—as sleuths to try to find out in what way a Minister has fulfilled his promise. When the Minister made that promise on 15th December, which was the fifth Allotted Day, we had two further days of debate on the Bill. During those two days it would have been possible for the Minister to tell us, or to inform us before we adjourned for the Christmas Recess, what had happened to his promise.

Mr. H. Morrison: Any decent Minister would.

Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend suggests that any decent Minister would have done SO. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is typical of the Government's desire to dodge the House and of their contempt for the House.
We still have not heard from the Parliamentary Secretary tonight exactly what it is proposed to put in the place of the Railway Executive. The Government have in their minds they must have—the plans that they propose to put before the Commission, because in his speech to the Committee the Minister said that they would be drawn on general lines which would be proposed by the Government. We think that at this stage we should be informed better as to what are the intentions of the Government.
There has been a lot of talk, and a lot of loose talk, this evening about de-centralisation. It has been assumed by Members opposite that one has merely to de-centralise the Railway Executive in some way or other and that immediately the operation of the railways will be more efficient than it is now. It seems that they are harbouring a great many illusions as to the extent of the efficiency of British Railways before nationalisation.
From speeches of hon. Members opposite one would think that the British railway system when operated by the four main-line companies was highly efficient, modern, keeping up with all modern technique and development and, in fact, leading the world. As it happens, the contrary was the truth. Even

today, despite the great improvements which have taken place in the efficiency of British Railways under nationalisation, we are a long way behind the railways of the Continent of Europe. There has been published recently the Annual Bulletin of Statistics of the Economic Commission for Europe for 1951. If hon. Members studied that they would be shocked to find in what particulars British Railways are lagging behind more recent development of Continental railways. Although they have caught up to some extent, the gap between the efficiency of our railways and that of the Continent is still very large. It would have been far larger but for the great improvements which have taken place since 1948.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: The noble Lord questions that, but I will give him one figure. On the turn-round of wagons in this country the average period for goods wagons is just over 10 days. On most of the Continental railways the turn-round is from four to five or six days. That turn-round was even greater—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I take it that this argument is related to the necessity for the Railway Executive?

Mr. Davies: With all respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this is very relevant indeed to the abolition of the Railway Executive. The whole purport of my argument is that the Railway Executive have enabled considerable improvements to be made in the operation of the British railway system. My immediate argument on that point was that, compared with the railways of Continental Europe, we were still lagging behind and, if the Railway Executive is abolished and there is a return to the pre-war system of operation, I fear that efficiency will decline and our position will be even worse.
We have listened to the Minister in Committee and to the Parliamentary Secretary tonight. We are still convinced that any faults or deficiencies there may be and we admit that there are some deficiencies in the administration or organisation of the Transport Commission and particularly the Railway Executive—can be cured within


the present structure and without the Clauses in this Bill. There is provision in the 1947 Act for changes which are required. The Commission themselves are satisfied that they can carry out any form of reconstruction they consider necessary and have put forward proposals to that end. To bring about such reconstruction it is not necessary to destroy the structure and make the situation worse. In doing so the Minister promises that he will retain co-ordination and so on, but he is first destroying the coordination that already exists and then he proposes to attempt to rebuild. The Railway Executive can be reconstructed and revised to the extent necessary under the schemes which the Transport Commission can itself put forward within the terms of the 1947 Act. This subsection is unnecessary and we therefore consider that this Amendment to delete it and to prevent the compulsory abolition of the Railway Executive should be agreed to.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Renton: The approach of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) is somewhat different from that of his hon. Friends, all of whom were former railwaymen, who spoke before him. The former railwaymen worked themselves into a state of indignation because there was to be any change at all in the set-up of the nationalised transport industry. They are indeed the diehards of modern political life. [Interruption.] That seems to strike a chord in hon. Members opposite. I see them as Colonel Blimps upside down.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East has a very much fresher approach to the problem. I quote from page 8 of a pamphlet which he wrote, and in which he described the organisation of the Railway Executive and its relation to the British Transport Commission. He said, and we naturally took a great deal of notice of what he said:
this type of organisation has its dangers. If it involves the passing of instructions from the centre right down the line, through the appropriate functional staff at each level, there may be too frequent reference back before decisions are taken. The results will be delay, inflexibility and bureaucracy.
We on this side of the House certainly owe the hon. Gentleman a debt of gratitude, because he has found words to express just what we were finding and

what so many people in this country were feeling, including many of those employed on the railways.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The mere fact that in that pamphlet it was pointed out that there were certain dangers of a functional form of organisation, is no justification for the abolition of the Railway Executive.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman cannot really excuse himself like that for having hit the nail so precisely on the head.
There are only four serious points which are at issue upon the Amendment which we are discussing. The first point, which has been made by several hon. Members opposite, is whether Parliament should have before it a detailed proposal, all of which it consents to or disapproves of. The answer is, of course, that eventually Parliament will have such a proposal before it, and the fact that at this stage, and in Clause 14, it is merely an enabling power which is being granted, does not in any way derogate from the ultimate responsibility which this House and Parliament generally will have in the matter.

Mr. Mitchison: rose—

Mr. Renton: Time is short, and I am afraid I cannot give way.
As to the abolition of the Railway Executive, quite candidly I should have thought that the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) gave the answer to the measure of this problem when he told us that 70 per cent. of the Commission's revenue was derived from the railways. When we have hived off that most frightful encumbrance, the Road Haulage Executive, and given the Commission an opportunity to do much better financially than it is doing at the moment, then the Railway Executive will surely consist of much more than 70 per cent. of the total activity of the British Transport Commission, and if we get to that stage what is the point of having both the Railway Executive and the British Transport Commission? I should have thought that there would be very little change in that alteration; and certainly any human problem that is likely to arise is not likely to affect very many people.
As to the set-up of the area schemes, which is the third point, I apply the views


which I have already quoted, expressed by the hon. Member for Enfield, East, equally to the setting up of those authorities. That would provide the answer to the problem which he so aptly poses in his pamphlet.
Finally, on the general question of de-centralisation, whether there are area schemes or not, the Commission itself, and Sir Eustace Missenden, in a letter to "The Times," and other authorities have pointed to the need for constant vigilance on this question of decentralisation. The Commission, on page 91 of its last report, referred to further progress in de-centralisation of management. The Commission itself is embarking on a measure of de-centralisation, and there is no reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, as I say, have worked themselves into a state of great indignation about any change, should fear anything at all as a result of de-centralisation. There has been a great deal of spurious indignation in this discussion and hon. Gentlemen opposite, having got the steam so eloquently off their chests, will now, like Colonel Blimp himself, realise that they have seen better days.

Mr. D. Jones: The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) seems to fasten on to a very small point and seek to make heavy weather of it. I think he would make a very good market place salesman for patent medicines. The whole purpose of this goes much further than the abolition of the Railway Executive. Indeed, the hon. Member quoted from Sir Eustace Missenden. But what Sir Eustace said was different from completely destroying the Commission. He went a good deal further than that. In his letter to "The Times" and in his lectures to the Institute of Transport he has sought to define a centralised organisation.
Sir Eustace, as hon. Gentlemen probably know, was originally general manager of the Southern Railway. He has had experience of a group company, and as chairman of the Railway Executive. He is not the only person who has subscribed to that view. Sir william Wood who had experience on the L.M.S. Railway and is now a member of the British Transport Commission, has subscribed similarly. Mr. John Elliott, who came from the Southern Region, wrote in

the "Derby Telegraph" on 28th July, 1951:
Remember that the British Railways are but 3+ years old. Let those of us … who remember the painful beginnings of the L.M.S., L.N.E. and Southern groups, call to mind the heartburnings—in some cases even the personal animosities—and the upheavals, trials and tribulations of those amalgamations. …
He goes on:
The Chief Regional Officers and the heads of departments are fully consulted on all such questions, and full weight is given to their great experience. …
If we are to believe what some hon. Members have suggested, it is simply a question of a directive being issued from the Railway Executive all the way down, and that nobody is entitled to express another point of view.
Mr. John Elliott has pointed out, basing his opinion on his own experience on the Southern Railway, that the chief regional officers of the six regions have far greater power than their predecessors, the general managers. Sir Eustace Missenden subscribed to that view and so did Sir William Wood, as one of those people who had some experience of railways after the passing of the 1921 Act. I know of some of the difficulties which arose and I can subscribe to the view of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), although for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman I would say that I was not a member of the Taff Vale railway staff.
There were difficulties. It was suggested earlier by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) that automatic train control had been in operation on the Great Western Railway since 1906. That is true. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it was that neither the London North Eastern, the London Midland and Scottish nor the Southern Railway ever adopted automatic train control on their systems? I will tell him why. It was because the chief engineers of those companies did not accept the point of view of the chief engineer of the Great Western Railway. For precisely the same reason other developments introduced by the London North Eastern system were not adopted by any of the other groups.
One could give example after example. For instance, there is the instanter coupling of the Great Western Railway. It was many years before that was introduced by the other companies, because


we had four separate chief engineers who had their own ideas. I could make other comparisons. I do not deny that progress was made on the railways between 1922 and 1939, but it could have proceeded very much faster than it did if there had been some type of centralised direction.
Indeed, pre-war Tory Governments accepted that point of view. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson), who was the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Transport in 1937, in a debate in this House on 17th November subscribed to that point of view. He said that it was the aim and ambition of the then Conservative Government to secure co-ordination not on the railways alone but in transport as a whole. But they never did anything about it.
On this question of the division of the railways into six groups and the abolition of the Railway Executive, the Minister knows perfectly well that the morning after he abolishes the Executive he will have to put in its place some kind of centralised organisation. Does he propose to diversify the experimentation that is now going on into six different experiments? Does he propose to send out to the six regions all the development now

taking place at the centre? Does he propose to restore the more than 100 different types of locomotive in operation on these various railways before nationalisation?

When hon. Members talk about no development they should remember that standardisation of locomotives alone has saved many millions of pounds. They should remember that the bringing of wagons under unified and centralised control has saved many hours of shunting time at many marshalling yards. When the Minister divides the railways into six separate regions will he restore the marshalling yards which were abolished at the transfer points in existence before 1947?

Does he propose to allocate to each of the six separate railways a proportion of the wagons and then transfer them at operating points? Does he propose to enter into all this useless expenditure? We are not averse to change—

It being Half-past Ten o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes. 237; Noes, 216.

Division No. 8O.]
AYES
[10.30 p.m


Aitken, W. T.
Burden, F. F. A.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R F


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Flet[...]her-Cooke, C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Campbell, Sir David
Fort R.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Foster, John


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Carson, Hon. E.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Arbuthnot, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Channon, H.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Baker, P. A. D.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
George, Rt Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M.
Cole, Norman
Godher, J. B.


Baldwin, A. E.
Colegate, W. A.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A


Banks, Col. C.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gower, H. R.


Barber, Anthony
Cranborne, Viscount
Graham, Sir Fergus


Barlow, Sir John
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Baxter, A. B.
Crosthwaltd-Eyre, Col. O. E
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Crouch, R. F.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harden, J. R. E


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hare, Hon J. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Birch, Nigel
Davidson, Viscountess
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bishop, F. P
Davies, Rt. Kn. Clement (Montgomery)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bossom, A. C.
Deedes, W. F.
Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)


Bowen, E. R. 
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harvle-Watt, Sir George


Boyle, Sir Edward
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hay, John


Brains, B. R.
Donner, P. W.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Heath, Edward


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G (Bristol, N.W.)
Drayson, G. B.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Duthie, W S.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bullard, D. G.
Fell, A.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bullock, Capt. M.
Finlay, Graeme
Holland-Martin, C J.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fisher, Nigel
Hollis, M. C.




Holt, A. F.
Markham, Major S. F.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr R.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon Henry
Marlowe, A. A. H
Shepherd, William


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Marples, A. E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Horobin, I. M.
Maude, Angus
Smyth, Brig. J. G (Norwood)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Medlicott, Brig. F
Soames, Capt. C.


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Mellor, Sir John
Spearman, A. C. M


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Molson, A. H. E.
Speir, R. M.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Hurd, A. R.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hutchison, Lt.-Com Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Nabarro, G D. N.
Stevens, G P.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Nicholls, Harmer
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Storey, S.


Jenkins, R. C D (Dulwich)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Nugent, G R. H.
Summers, G. S.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nutting, Anthony
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Kaberry, D.
Odey, G. W.
Teeling, W.


Keeling, Sir Edward
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr R. (Croydon, W.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G
Osborne, C.
Tilney, John


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Touche, Sir Gordon


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Peyton, J. W. W
Turner, H. F. L.


Leather, E H. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Turton, R. H.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Vesper, D. F.


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Pitman, I. J.
Wade, D. W.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A T
Powell, J. Enoch
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Linstead, H. N.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G (King's Norton)
Profumo, J. D.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon C.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col J C.
Redmayne, M.
Watkinson, H. A.


Low, A. R. W.
Remnant, Hon. P
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)
Renton, D. L. M
Williams, Rt Hon Charles (Torquay)


Lucas, P B. (Brentford)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robertson, Sir David
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roper, Sir Harold
Wills, G.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Russell, R. S.
Wood, Hon. R.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
York, C


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas



Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Schofield, Lt.-Cot. W (Rochdale)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Scott, R Donald
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanel[...]y)


Albu, A. H.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Crossman, R. H. S
Hale, Leslle (Oldham, W.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cullen, Mrs A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Caine Valley)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hannan, W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hardy, E. A.


Baird, J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hargreaves, A.


Balfour, A
Deer, G.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Bartley, P
Delargy, H J
Hastings, S.


Bence, C. R
Dodds, N. N.
Hayman, F. H


Benn, Wedgwood
Donnelly, D. L
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Benson, G.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Herbison, Miss M.


Beswick, F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hobson, C. R.


Blackburn, F.
Edelman, M.
Houghton, Douglas


Blenkinsop, A
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Blyton, W R
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Boardman, H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bowles, F. G.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Brockway, A. F.
Fernyhough, E.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Fienburgh, W.
Irving, W J. (Wood Green)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D
Finch, H. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Janner, B.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Fo[...]lick, M
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Foot, M. M.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Callaghan, L. J.
Forman, J. C.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Carmichael, J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Champion, A. J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Chapman, W D.
Gibson, C. W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Chetwynd, G R
Glanville, James
Keenan, W


Clunie, J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Kenyon, C.


Coldrick, W.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossenda[...]e)
King, Dr H M


Collick, P. H.
Greenwood, Rt Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grenfell, Rt. Hon D. R
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lewis, Arthur







Lindgren, G. S.
Parker, J.
Swingler, S. T.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Paton, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


MacColl, J. E.
Pearson, A
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


McGhee, H. G.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


McGovern, J.
Popplewell, E.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Mclnnes, J.
Porter, G.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


McLeavy, F.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Proctor, W. T.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Tomney, F.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Reeves, J.
Turner-Samuels, M


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Manuel, A. C.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Viant, S. P.


Mayhew, C. P
Rhodes, H.
Wallace, H. W.


Mellish, R. J.
Richards, R.
Weitzman, D.


Messer, F.
Robern, Rt. Hon. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mikardo, Ian
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Mitchison, G. R
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
West, D. G.


Monslew, W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Moody, A. S.
Ross, William
Wheeldon, W. E.


Morley, R.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Short, E. W.
Whitt, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Moyle, A.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wigg, George


M[...]lley, F. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wilkins, W. A.


Nally, W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, David (Neath)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Slater, J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Oldfield, W. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Orbach, M.
Sorensen, R. W.
Winterbettom, Richard (Brightside)


Oswald, T.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Padley, W. E.
Sparks, J. A.
Yates, V. F.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Steele, T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.



Pannell, Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pargiter, G. A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Holmes.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Half-past Ten o'clock.

Clause I5.—(APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT OF RE-ORGANISATION SCHEMES.)

Amendments made: In page 21, line 7, leave out from beginning, to "by," in line 20, and insert:
(1) On any scheme being submitted to the Minister under the last preceding section, the Minister shall consider the scheme and shall consult with such bodies representative of classes of persons likely to be specially affected by the scheme as he may think fit and with the National Coal Board and may then, if he thinks fit.

In page 21 leave out lines 32 to 41, and insert:
with such bodies representative of classes of persons likely to be specially affected by the order as he may think fit and with the National Coal Board.

In page 22, line 5 leave out from beginning to "House," in line 6, and insert:
no order shall be made by the Minister under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of each."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Sir H. Butcher.]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered Tomorrow.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (USE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir Herbert Butcher.]

10.42 p.m.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: The matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is to be debated in this Chamber shortly, but I make no apology as the subject of tonight's Adjournment debate was brought to the notice of the House before this debate was arranged. We are today bombarded, and sometimes bored, by the statements of economists and newspapers about difficulties due to balance of payments and the gap between imports and exports.
This country's target, I believe, is to grow only 60 per cent. of the food she eats. The other 40 per cent. we have to import. It is somewhat unusual, but I claim to have been consistent on all occasions when I have spoken in public outside this Chamber. I have always said, and I repeat, that the salvation of this country lies in three main things—in the use we make of our people, namely, the ingenuity and ambition of our


people; in the use made of natural resources, notably coal; and in the use made of the land.
How are we, as a country with limited space, to use the land? The first thing we can do is to increase productivity until ultimately we are all growing appetising stuff and corn from damp blankets suspended in mid-air in magnetic circuits. Secondly, we can bring into cultivation what has become known as marginal land. In a recent debate, the figure of 2 million acres was given for moorland, heathland, and rough grazing. But the point with which I specially wish to deal is land preservation.
The present position in this country is briefly this. Every assault that is made on our land resources is vetted and approved by the Minister of Agriculture, who expresses what he thinks. However, the final decision is taken by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and this, in my view, is somewhat analogous to the situation in a court of law when there is a bad advocate and a bad judge. The situation which we have reached today is one which in my submission we cannot long accept without grave disquiet.
It has been estimated that we are losing 50,000 acres of land annually. This can only be a guess, but I think it is the National Farmers' Union who have made that estimate. Fifty thousand acres each year represents a loss to this country of a farm of 150 acres each day. It means that in 20 years' time at that rate we shall have lost the equivalent of half our wheat crop or the whole of the potato crop in one year.
In this matter we are bound to consider certain things. The first is, are we using to the utmost every acre of land for agriculture? Anybody who has travelled—as I do fairly regularly—between Birmingham and Wolverhampton cannot but have noticed the acres of land that have lain derelict for many years and probably for the best part of a century. This is not a discussion between town and country. That is not the argument at all, but there is one thing that can happen. The Press of this country could give this problem a great deal more ventilation that at present. I think the Press can do a great deal to make the public, both in the town and in the country, far more conscious than they

are at present of the absolute urgency of this problem.
There are always arguments against whether in building we should spread upwards or outwards. The argument against spreading upwards is that of additional cost in building, and that I can understand. The National Farmers' Union have suggested grants from the Government. That is only a suggestion. I do not plead for it; I do not plead against it. To a far greater extent than in any other country in Europe, there is a great prejudice against blocks of flats for dwellings.
I live in the borough of Chelsea, and I suppose within 100 yards of where live there are five or six blocks of flats between nine and 10 storeys high. They are not by any means all privately owned, because there are council flats as well. At the same time, I suppose that that part of the City is one of the most highly rated parts of residential London. The argument that flats are distasteful and noisy is something that we can discount
I said earlier that this is ultimately a decision for the Minister of Housing and Local Government. It is my view that if there is any public enemy in this matter, it is the Minister of Agriculture; but I realise, of course, that ultimately the judge is the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The Minister of Housing shows a greater realisation of the problem than does the Minister of Agriculture. I think it was the Minister of Housing who spoke about "sprawling cities with blighted centres." That is true, and it is a danger; and we have got, as a result of the last war, blighted centres of cities with sprawling boundaries.
In August last year, the Minister produced a circular—one of many circulars—from which I should like to make two short quotations. The first—I agree with every word—says:
authorities must take every care to conserve farm land—by building, wherever possible, on poorer land. …
Later, the Minister says:
a housing authority should be prepared to incur some additional cost where that will enable them to keep off good agricultural land.
That is good, but it is only a circular, and I am afraid that it will achieve and mean very little.
One must wonder why certain things happen. One reads of examples of how. in the Services, certain houses that are to be occupied by officers for only short periods have anything up to one and three-quarter acres. We find that during the last few years schools have been built only one storey high. I wonder why that is? I am informed that Eton College is two or three storeys high. and as far as I know that is quite a good school.
In recent months it is only quite recently—I believe that the Minister of Education has started to require "require," I think, is the appropriate word—that schools become more compact. I presume this means going up to the first floor, and, perhaps, the second. That is a good thing, but there is a good deal of land which is wasted around schools, which is not necessarily used for playing fields or other recreational purposes but is just a cordon sanitaire which is created round the school.
A year ago last June, I was one of a Committee of four which sat to consider a Private Bill in the House, and I think that it is worth giving some of the figures. It was the Rochester Corporation Bill, and it proposed that Rochester Corporation should take within their boundaries some 5,600 acres. Under the Land Utilisation Survey, that land was divided by what one calls an agricultural expert into three categories, 1, 2 and 3, each category being divided into two.
In Category 1 (a), the United Kingdom average of Class I (a) land was 6.8, but in that particular area it was 41 per cent. That was some of the best agricultural land in the whole country, and yet solemnly a Bill came as far as this House—I am glad to say it was rejected by that Committee, of which I was a Member—which proposed to take over for housing and other purposes land of such a quality as that. As that agricultural expert said to the Committee, if we in this country build on land of that quality, we deserve to starve.
The second thing which I wish to bring to the notice of the House is an example of a development plan of a county authority. It is a good, sound plan, and as a development plan I do not argue about it, but it is worth seeing what that plan does. In the first place,

in the next two or three years it proposes to take over 260 acres for administration. The Post Office take a little, a hospital accounts for 12 acres, and education alone takes 203 acres.
In addition, within the next 20 years I believe another 330 acres are proposed to be taken over under this development plan. I wonder what the development plan for agriculture over the same year is. Of course there is not one. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England has made strong representations on many occasions about this. They wrote in 1950 to the then Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition. They received a letter in reply dated 18th May, 1950, which I think is worth quoting. It stated:
In the last paragraph of your letter you suggest an official inquiry into the whole question of land use, with the object of assessing the amount of agricultural land likely to be required for development of all kinds over a given period. I cannot see that any inquiry directed to such a question could achieve any useful results.
I have addressed the same question in another form to the present Prime Minister and the present Minister of Agriculture. When I asked the Prime Minister how long we were going on losing 50,000 acres of agricultural land a year and increasing the population by 300,000 a year, he sent me a copy of HANSARD of a debate in another place, and the Minister of Agriculture sent me a reply which was one hundred per cent. evasive.
I do urge the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Agriculture to consider the possibility of setting up some form of inquiry. We have got sitting today Royal Commissions on various subjects. I suppose a Royal Commission can be considered sometimes a method of shelving a matter, but never was an impartial inquiry required more on a subject than on this particular subject at the moment. When the hon. Gentleman comes to reply, I hope he will give me something more than the Departmental answer. It is very hard to get figures showing whether there has been a net increase or decrease of agricultural land. But, assuming over recent years there has been a decrease, how long are we going to let that state of affairs continue? I like to think a conclusion has been reached about it.
The Parliamentary Secretary may use any period he likes. What extra acreage does he expect to bring within the agricultural sphere? What percentage increase in production is it hoped to produce during that period? How many acres of agricultural land is it expected will be lost during that period? I am prepared to bet, if it is within the rules of order, that neither of the two hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench will be prepared to answer any of these questions. Does that letter from the former Prime Minister to the Council for the Preservation of Rural England still form the basis of Government policy? If it does, I implore both hon. Gentlemen in their own interests, and the interests of the country, to change their minds.

11.0 p.m.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) has raised this vitally important matter tonight. I only want to ask the Minister whether it is or is not a fact that food is the most important thing in this country, or in any other country in the world. Coal is excellent, houses are splendid, and schools are all most desirable and very necessary, but without food they are all completely useless.
Therefore, if it comes to a question of whether good agricultural land should be taken for other purposes or left for the production of food in this small island which we cannot extend, then the answer must be food every time. That is where I think the Ministry of Agriculture has failed so badly as has the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. As my hon. Friend said a moment ago, it is not only the Ministry of Housing and Local Government which is at fault, because the Ministry of Fuel and Power is even worse with its opencast coalmining.
Does anyone believe that we are going to get the volume of food from abroad which we used to get? We are not. Therefore, we must get more and more from our own land, and that is the argument that must carry the most weight. I hope the Minister is going to agree with that, because every Minister responsible for the wellbeing of this island must say that whatever is required food must come first.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: rose—

11.2 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am sorry I cannot allow my hon. and gallant Friend to intervene, but I have only 10 minutes in which to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) who was fortunate enough to secure this Adjournment debate.
The Government realise the seriousness of the subject raised. There is no doubt that in this country we must be more self-sufficient as far as food is concerned than we have been in the past. I was a little distressed to hear my hon. Friend accuse my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture of being a bad advocate and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government of being a bad judge, and when he went on to say that Eton was a good school, I was tempted to remind him that my right hon. Friend is a worthy product of that good school. He went to Eton, so he cannot be a frightfully bad judge.
My hon. Friend asked certain questions involving a number of figures. I am bound to say that had he given notice of these particular figures it would have been much more easy to give him a precise, accurate and prompt answer than it is on the spur of the moment.

Mr. Langford-Holt: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not having given him notice of that, and I would not expect him to answer at this moment. I would be more than delighted to get a reply on the point in the course of the next two or three weeks.

Mr. Marples: I can do better than that; I will give my hon. Friend a reply in the next two or three days, and we will look at HANSARD in the morning to read what he has said so that we may give him the precise answers to the questions he has asked.
I would like to divide this subject into three parts. First, what is the Government's policy; second, what are the methods of administering that policy; and, third, who is responsible for the policy? The answer to the first part—what is the Government's policy?—is that it is to safeguard agricultural land. That


is a prime object of planning, for planning is an abject and lamentable failure if it does not preserve agricultural land where it is possible to do so.
I think the entire House will be in agreement on that policy, and I am only sorry that the Opposition are so disinterested in this subject. It really is important that we should agree on this policy. The second thing is that when we are presenting a balanced argument on this, it is unfair not to mention that this is a crowded island as well as a highly industrialised community. This inevitably leads to a clash of interest between housing, agriculture and industry.
In many cases, it is a choice of evils, but we would be lacking in our duty to the present generation as well as to posterity if we did not preserve as much of our agricultural land as possible. Thirdly, there is the question of administering that policy and getting it over in the country. My hon. Friend said it was merely a circular, but my right hon. Friend—that worthy product of Eton—issued in 1952 Circular No. 65, paragraph 5 of which said:
To select poorer land in preference to good land may, the Minister recognises, involve higher development costs. The question at what stage the additional costs may make the choice of an alternative site uneconomic must depend on the particular case, but a housing authority should he prepared to incur some additional costs where that will enable them to keep off good agricultural land.
In other words, my right hon. Friend recommends that additional costs should be incurred to preserve agricultural land.

Mr. Langford-Holt: It is not being done.

Mr. Marples: If it is not being done, it is up to my hon. Friend or anyone else in a particular case to object.
My hon. Friend mentioned a development plan and said that in this development plan education had its say, housing had its say, and I think he said the Post Office had something to say. But any interested party—the National Farmers' Union or any individual farmer—can object to that plan, because it has not been approved and it is not final.

Mr. Langford-Holt: What about the Minister?

Mr. Marples: The Minister of Agriculture can do it. So can the hon. Gentleman if he wants to. So can any individual association in the constituency. The local branch of the National Farmers' Union, on behalf of its members, can object. I am bound to say that I, personally, have objected to the County of London Plan because it affects some of my own personal interests. Every person in this country has a right to object to a development plan if they want to, and it is wrong at this stage to say that the development plan is wrong, because it has not been finally approved. Any hon. Member can object to any part of any development plan. That is how we have tried to implement the policy.
Two recent booklets, one "The Density of Residential Areas" which my right hon. Friend issued in 1952, and the other "Design in Town and Village" which came out in 1953, have again emphasised this. My right hon. Friend really means this in his capacity as judge. In "The Density of Residential Areas" the first paragraph of the foreword written by my right hon. Friend. in his inimitable style. says this:
Many thousands of acres of land have been taken for development every year and much of this is good agricultural land. Some loss of agricultural land cannot be prevented if we are to have more houses, schools and factories; if we are to meet the requirements of defence and if we arc to get the minerals we need. But is is essential that the amount of land taken should be kept as small as possible.
That is the opening paragraph written by my right hon. Friend himself.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Who takes any notice of that?

Mr. Marples: If my hon. and gallant Friend knows of any individual and particular case where no notice is being taken of that, where agricultural land is being taken which ought not to be taken, then, quite frankly, it is his duty to tell my right hon. Friend of that particular case rather than make generalisations.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: When a case is put up and apparently completely ignored—the case I intended to quote had I been fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye—of 25 acres of the best agricultural land taken, when there is a gravel pit next to it being used as a rubbish dump, it is difficult to understand what my hon. Friend is trying to say.

Mr. Marples: All I am saying is that if my hon. and gallant Friend will send me particulars of that case I will look into it and try to discover the facts. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman must make his arguments known before the land is taken in order that my right hon. Friend can weigh all the pros and cons of the particular case, and it is a wee bit unfair to generalise after the event instead of objecting before the event in a particular case.

Mr. Langford-Holt: I said the plan was a good one. I was not objecting to the plan. I was saying there was no national plan. The county plan was a good development plan.

Mr. Marples: If it was a good development plan it should have included proper provision for agricuItural land. If it does not include provisions to preserve the land then, to my mind, it is not a good plan. If it is a good plan merely for building houses and wrecking agricultural land I cannot see that it is desirable for the community, and any person who wants to object should certainly do so.
It is quite clear that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is responsible, and before he makes any decision of any sort he has consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, either at headquarters or at regional level, whichever is appropriate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture generally makes representations fairly vigorously. One difficulty, as far as the public is concerned, is that generally speaking the Ministry of Agriculture consults directly the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and does not give evidence in public at the public

inquiry. Consequently, the public think it has not made its objections known. That, I think, is a weakness we might look at.
In the case of private development, the local planning authority consults local representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, and after consideration of the agricultural implications makes a recommendation. It is the responsibility of the local planning authority to determine, and balance, the merits of the application in the light of all the facts, and taking this recommendation into account. If it is going to prejudice agricultural interests, the Land Commissioner gets a sufficient appreciation of the agricultural considerations involved to enable the authority to judge the strength of the agricultural objections. I think the weakness in the system is that the public does not know that agriculture makes its representations. We will go into that point.
As far as development by local authorities and statutory undertakers is concerned, the provincial Land Commissioners are consulted before planning permission is given. The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject. We agree in policy. Where we disagree is that in some cases my hon. Friend thinks that instructions have not been obeyed.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twelve Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.